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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll