Image from Google Jackets

R v Lambeth LBC ex parte Clayhope Properties Ltd

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 283(6347) 15 August 1987, 739-744(4)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 11 June 1987 Appeal against a High Court decision (See (1986) 281EG 288) refusing an application by the freehold owners of a mansion block of flats for judicial review ; that is to say refusing an order of mandamus requiring the council to make mandatory repairs under Housing Act 1974 s71A , amended by the Housing Act 1980 . The mandatory repairs grants depended on the execution of works required by notices under Housing Act 1957 s9(1A) and the High Court judge held that the notices served on the leaseholders in respect of their flats and the freehold owners were invalid. The notices under s9(1A) had to be served on a person having control of the house and an individual flat in a block was not a "house". CA agreed, but also considered an alternative suggestion under Housing Act 1957 s18 that the local authority could take the same proceedings in relation to "any part of a building which is used, or is suitable for use, as a dwelling". This provision, however, although it would ena
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS38088 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 8659-1001

CA 11 June 1987 Appeal against a High Court decision (See (1986) 281EG 288) refusing an application by the freehold owners of a mansion block of flats for judicial review ; that is to say refusing an order of mandamus requiring the council to make mandatory repairs under Housing Act 1974 s71A , amended by the Housing Act 1980 . The mandatory repairs grants depended on the execution of works required by notices under Housing Act 1957 s9(1A) and the High Court judge held that the notices served on the leaseholders in respect of their flats and the freehold owners were invalid. The notices under s9(1A) had to be served on a person having control of the house and an individual flat in a block was not a "house". CA agreed, but also considered an alternative suggestion under Housing Act 1957 s18 that the local authority could take the same proceedings in relation to "any part of a building which is used, or is suitable for use, as a dwelling". This provision, however, although it would ena