header-logo header-logo

22 July 2016
Issue: 7708 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Landlord & tenant

Edwards v Kumarasamy [2016] UKSC 40, [2016] All ER (D) 54 (Jul)

The Supreme Court held that although the landlord, K, had a sufficient “interest” in the front hallway and paved area of the rented flat for the purposes of s 11(1A)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, K was not liable for the disrepair which had caused the tenant’s, E’s, injury, as; (i) he could only be liable if the paved area of the property had been part of the exterior of the front hall and it had not been and: (ii) he could only be liable if he had had notice of the disrepair before the accident which he had not had.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll