Basildon District Council v Wahlen
Basildon District Council v Wahlen
- 2006
[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.
BASILDON DC V WAHLEN
HOUSING ACT 1985 S16
BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL V LOVELL
KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA LBC V HISLOP
HOUSING ACT 1985 S82
HOUSING ACT 1985 S118
HOUSING ACT 1985 S138
HOUSING ACT 1985 S121(1)
HOUSING ACT 1985 PART V
England and Wales--1543-
[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.
BASILDON DC V WAHLEN
HOUSING ACT 1985 S16
BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL V LOVELL
KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA LBC V HISLOP
HOUSING ACT 1985 S82
HOUSING ACT 1985 S118
HOUSING ACT 1985 S138
HOUSING ACT 1985 S121(1)
HOUSING ACT 1985 PART V
England and Wales--1543-