header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Right to reply: Mind the gap

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
12 June 2014 / Robin Denford
Issue: 7611 / Categories: Opinion , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Robin Denford raises questions over the removal of the power to restrain a breach of tenancy injunction

I read with interest the article by Kirsty Varley in NLJ (“Mind the gap”, NLJ, 23 May 2014, p 11). 

With the greatest of respect to Ms Varley, I do not see that the removal of the power to restrain a breach of tenancy injunction is a significant loss with the re-enactment of tools and powers formerly contained within the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996). 

Council experience

Since the 1996 legislation was created, my authority has successfully sought many hundreds of anti-social behaviour injunctions under s 153 of HA 1996. In very few cases has the use of s 153D been a significant part of the relief sought. 

My council’s own tenancy conditions do make the tenant responsible for the acts of his visitors. It is however, very rarely the case that the tenant is a passive actor. Conduct which is in breach of tenancy conditions which is serious enough

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll