Image from Google Jackets

Basildon District Council v Wahlen

Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWCA Civ 326, 28 March 2006. Considers how the court should assess competing claims for possession of property under the Housing Act 1985 s82 and the right to buy under s118 of the Act, where there is no express statutory guidance giving precedence to either claim. Appeal by B against the district judge's decision to dismiss its claim for possession of a property under s82 of the Act and granting an injunction to W enforcing his right to buy under s118 of the Act. The judge made no reference to B's grounds for seeking possession in his decision. W contended that the judge was bound to balance the competing claims and had failed to do so. "Held": appeal allowed. The act of balancing competing claims had to be carried out and should be an essential ingredient of any judgment. In the instant case the judgment should have contained some reasoning why the balance ultimately had come down in favour of W. The matter was remitted to the CC for a retrial.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 133600-2001

[2006] EWCA Civ 326, 28 March 2006. Considers how the court should assess competing claims for possession of property under the Housing Act 1985 s82 and the right to buy under s118 of the Act, where there is no express statutory guidance giving precedence to either claim. Appeal by B against the district judge's decision to dismiss its claim for possession of a property under s82 of the Act and granting an injunction to W enforcing his right to buy under s118 of the Act. The judge made no reference to B's grounds for seeking possession in his decision. W contended that the judge was bound to balance the competing claims and had failed to do so. "Held": appeal allowed. The act of balancing competing claims had to be carried out and should be an essential ingredient of any judgment. In the instant case the judgment should have contained some reasoning why the balance ultimately had come down in favour of W. The matter was remitted to the CC for a retrial.