Image from Google Jackets

Julie Hickey v Haringey London Borough Council

Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWCA Civ 373, 10 April 2006. Considers what was important for the purposes of the exception to the creation of a secure tenancy in the Housing Act 1985 Sched 1 para 6 in deciding whether a property had been leased with vacant position. Appeal by HI against a possession order made in favour of HA. A private landlord had a leased a flat to HA with vacant possession for use by it as temporary housing in accordance with Sched 1 para 6 of the Act. HA had granted a sub-tenancy to HI of a flat whose lease provided for the lessor to obtain possession at the end of the term. HA commenced possession proceedings against HI due to rent arrears. The judge made a possession order deciding that the exception in sched 1 para 6 applied and that HI did not have a secure tenancy. HI contended that the exception did not apply as neither the vacant possession requirements in paras 6(a) and 6(b) had been fulfilled. "Held": appeal allowed. The position between the lessor and HA was the important issue in deciding whether the flat had a lease with vacant possession. HI's actual occupation at any time was irrelevant
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 133606-2001

[2006] EWCA Civ 373, 10 April 2006. Considers what was important for the purposes of the exception to the creation of a secure tenancy in the Housing Act 1985 Sched 1 para 6 in deciding whether a property had been leased with vacant position. Appeal by HI against a possession order made in favour of HA. A private landlord had a leased a flat to HA with vacant possession for use by it as temporary housing in accordance with Sched 1 para 6 of the Act. HA had granted a sub-tenancy to HI of a flat whose lease provided for the lessor to obtain possession at the end of the term. HA commenced possession proceedings against HI due to rent arrears. The judge made a possession order deciding that the exception in sched 1 para 6 applied and that HI did not have a secure tenancy. HI contended that the exception did not apply as neither the vacant possession requirements in paras 6(a) and 6(b) had been fulfilled. "Held": appeal allowed. The position between the lessor and HA was the important issue in deciding whether the flat had a lease with vacant possession. HI's actual occupation at any time was irrelevant