header-logo header-logo

13 September 2007 / Mark Sefton , Oliver Radley-Gardner
Issue: 7288 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Property Law Update

MORE TEETH FOR DDA 1995 >>
RIGHT TO LIGHT >>
COHABITATION >>

Lewisham London Borough Council v Malcolm [2007] EWCA Civ 763, [2007] All ER (D) 401 (Jul)

In Malcolm the Court of Appeal was asked to consider the effect of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995) on mandatory orders for possession. Courtney Malcolm, a secure tenant under the Housing Act 1985, sought to exercise his right to buy, but had, before completion, lost his statutory security of tenure by subletting without the consent of Lewisham. Discovery of the subletting prompted Lewisham to refuse to complete and instead to issue possession proceedings. Malcolm was suffering from schizophrenia, a fact of which Lewisham was unaware. At trial, there was some evidence to suggest that, at the time of the subletting, Malcolm’s condition had become more severe, possibly due to a change in the manner of administration of his medication.

Interaction between possession orders

The question of the interaction between possession orders and DDA 1995 has been considered before, in Manchester City Council

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll