Image from Google Jackets

Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Hill

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1994) 35 EG 124-126(3)Publication details: 1994Subject(s): Summary: CA 15 April 1994. In 1990 orders were made for possession of the premises not to be enforced for 28 days and for as long as H paid arrears, mesne profits and costs. H failed to pay off the arrears and a warrant for possession was executed. H applied to the county court to set this aside and to suspend the warrant. The arrears were reduced but the court refused to set aside the possession order but varied it so that possession could not be obtained if H continued to pay off current rent and £2.15 per week towards arrears. They also set aside the warrant for possession. The council appealed contending the court had no power to set it aside. H cross appealed on the grounds that she had not been informed of her right to apply to the court under Housing Act 1985 s85(2) to suspend the warrant before its execution and was misled as to the amount of arrears and likely conditions of suspension. The two appeals were allowed however it was seen that there was an arguable case on oppression whic
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS51279 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 19345-1001

CA 15 April 1994. In 1990 orders were made for possession of the premises not to be enforced for 28 days and for as long as H paid arrears, mesne profits and costs. H failed to pay off the arrears and a warrant for possession was executed. H applied to the county court to set this aside and to suspend the warrant. The arrears were reduced but the court refused to set aside the possession order but varied it so that possession could not be obtained if H continued to pay off current rent and £2.15 per week towards arrears. They also set aside the warrant for possession. The council appealed contending the court had no power to set it aside. H cross appealed on the grounds that she had not been informed of her right to apply to the court under Housing Act 1985 s85(2) to suspend the warrant before its execution and was misled as to the amount of arrears and likely conditions of suspension. The two appeals were allowed however it was seen that there was an arguable case on oppression whic