Basildon District Council v Wahlen
Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s):- 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-
- PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-LEASEHOLD RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES-BREACHING RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 133600-2001 |
Browsing Virtual shelves, Shelving location: Online Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| ONLINE PUBLICATION Wychavon District Council v Rafferty and others | ONLINE PUBLICATION South Bedfordshire District Council v John Price and others | ONLINE PUBLICATION Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom | ONLINE PUBLICATION Basildon District Council v Wahlen | ONLINE PUBLICATION Emmanuel Cook and JD Wetherspoon PLC | ONLINE PUBLICATION Raymond Martin v Medina Housing Association Ltd | ONLINE PUBLICATION Captiva Estates Ltd v Rybarn Ltd |
[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.