Image from Google Jackets

R v Newcastle upon Tyne County Court, ex parte Thompson

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8826) 2 July 1988, 112-118(4)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: QBD 15 March 1988. Application by tenant (T) for judicial review, seeking an order of certiorari to quash the District Registrar`s order for possession of a flat occupied by T. The landlord (D) had claimed possession on the ground that the flat was reasonably required for occupation as a residence by himself and his family within the Rent Act 1977 Schedule 15 Case 9 . Both parties agreed to the making of an order in the cc, but T subsequently changed her mind and applied for judicial review of the order on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to make it. Before the order could be made, the following conditions had to be satisfied: 1) under s98(1) of the Act the court must consider it reasonable to make an order and 2) under Case 9 it must be shown that D reasonably required the flat, or that D would suffer the greater hardship if he was not granted possession. QBD considered a number of decisions concerning the court`s jurisdiction to make a consent order. QBD concluded that
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39516 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 17266-1001

QBD 15 March 1988. Application by tenant (T) for judicial review, seeking an order of certiorari to quash the District Registrar`s order for possession of a flat occupied by T. The landlord (D) had claimed possession on the ground that the flat was reasonably required for occupation as a residence by himself and his family within the Rent Act 1977 Schedule 15 Case 9 . Both parties agreed to the making of an order in the cc, but T subsequently changed her mind and applied for judicial review of the order on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to make it. Before the order could be made, the following conditions had to be satisfied: 1) under s98(1) of the Act the court must consider it reasonable to make an order and 2) under Case 9 it must be shown that D reasonably required the flat, or that D would suffer the greater hardship if he was not granted possession. QBD considered a number of decisions concerning the court`s jurisdiction to make a consent order. QBD concluded that