Adrian Davis, barrister at Field Court Chambers, examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Smith v Khan upon the correct measure of general damages for trespass in unlawful eviction cases when a claimant does not pursue a claim for reinstatement to the property.
There has recently been some widespread legal commentary on the requirements contained within the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and Prescribed Requirements (England) Regulations 20165 SI No 1646 and Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 SI No 2451 in light of a recent decision made by His Honour Judge Luba QC in Caridon Property Ltd v Shooltz, County Court at Central London (2 February 2018).
The Court of Appeal has decided that interim relief can only be sought via s.204A Housing Act 1996 if the s.204 appeal is challenging a review decision rather than the original decision – Davis v Watford Borough Council  EWCA Civ 529.
Michael Paget and Zoë Whittington of Cornerstone Barristers, who acted for Watford Borough Council, explain the decision.
On 3 April 2018 the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 commenced, providing a number of new duties on housing authorities to provide early intervention to prevent homelessness. The Act makes significant amendments and additions to the Housing Act 1996.
This, in essence, is the question at the heart of the long-running case of London Borough of Haringey v. Simawi. The question will be answered at trial in October 2018 following judgment in LB Haringey v Mulkhis Simawi and The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government  EWHC 290 (QB)
Mathew McDermott discusses this potentially very important judgment.
In an important decision for local housing authorities, Hertfordshire County Council v Davies, the Court of Appeal has confirmed the lawfulness of an order for possession notwithstanding that the landlord had failed to comply with its duties under s. 11 of the Children Act 2004.
Andrew Lane and Tara O'Leary, who acted for Hertfordshire County Council, explain the judgement and its significance.