Image from Google Jackets

Freeman v London Borough of Islington [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2009Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2009] EWCA Civ 536, 11 June 2009. The case relates to the meaning of "resided with" in the Housing Act 1985 S87. Ms Freeman (F) appealed against a decision to make a possession order concerning a flat in favour of the London Borough of Islington. F's father had a secure tenancy for this flat. When his health deteriorated, F, who had another flat, moved in with him. The judge had considered that for the purposes of the Housing Act 1985 S87, she had not resided with him even though she stayed in the flat with him full-time. "Held": appealed dismissed. The judge had correctly decided on the case. F was looking after her father, fulfilling her natural duty to him. She was not making the flat her home. The judge was right in considering that she was not residing with her father.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE JUDGMENT (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 147870-2001

[2009] EWCA Civ 536, 11 June 2009. The case relates to the meaning of "resided with" in the Housing Act 1985 S87. Ms Freeman (F) appealed against a decision to make a possession order concerning a flat in favour of the London Borough of Islington. F's father had a secure tenancy for this flat. When his health deteriorated, F, who had another flat, moved in with him. The judge had considered that for the purposes of the Housing Act 1985 S87, she had not resided with him even though she stayed in the flat with him full-time. "Held": appealed dismissed. The judge had correctly decided on the case. F was looking after her father, fulfilling her natural duty to him. She was not making the flat her home. The judge was right in considering that she was not residing with her father.