Image from Google Jackets

North Devon Homes Ltd v Brazier

Series: Estates Gazette ; [2003] 22 EG 141-144(4)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Summary: [2003] EWHC 574 (QB), 28 March 2003. Appeal by the tenant (B) from a possession order granted to the respondent landlord (N). B suffered from acute mental disability, which involved her in persistent anti-social behaviour. N initiated possession proceedings relying on a Housing Act 1988 s8 notice. That B's behaviour was in breach of the tenancy agreement was not an issue. A possession order was made holding that N's eviction of B was unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 but in the circumstances the 1995 Act could not be allowed to override the discretion to make a possession order under the Housing Act 1988 s7. N cross-appealed. "Held", appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed. B's eviction was not justified by the terms of the 1995 Act and was thus unlawful. A possession order should not have been granted because the exercise of the discretion to grant possession promoted the unlawful conduct under the 1995 Act.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS67006 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 123400-1001

[2003] EWHC 574 (QB), 28 March 2003. Appeal by the tenant (B) from a possession order granted to the respondent landlord (N). B suffered from acute mental disability, which involved her in persistent anti-social behaviour. N initiated possession proceedings relying on a Housing Act 1988 s8 notice. That B's behaviour was in breach of the tenancy agreement was not an issue. A possession order was made holding that N's eviction of B was unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 but in the circumstances the 1995 Act could not be allowed to override the discretion to make a possession order under the Housing Act 1988 s7. N cross-appealed. "Held", appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed. B's eviction was not justified by the terms of the 1995 Act and was thus unlawful. A possession order should not have been granted because the exercise of the discretion to grant possession promoted the unlawful conduct under the 1995 Act.