Bristol City Council v Mohamud Hassan and another and Bristol City Council v Jane Glastonbury
Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWCA Civ 656, 23 May 2006. Considers whether anything in the Housing Act 1985 s85 can prevent a judge from making such order for postponement of possession as he saw fit and whether a judge was obliged to set out a date for possession on the face of his order. Appeal by H against the form of suspended possession orders. H were two secure tenants who were in arrears with their rent. B sought suspended possession orders on terms that H paid modest instalments towards the arrears. H contended that the court should order H to give possession on a date to be fixed on application by the local authority. "Held": appeals allowed. Nothing in s85 of the Act limited the discretion of the judge to make an order for postponement of possession in the manner he saw fit and he was not obliged to set out a date for the possession on the face of his order. The judge could lawfully make an order setting out a date for possession but provided that that date would be postponed and the tenancy would continue so long as conditions in the order continued to be satisfied.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 133947-2001 |
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 RICS UK construction forecast 2006 | ONLINE PUBLICATION London to lead way in design and architecture | ONLINE PUBLICATION Kent and another v Kavanagh and another | ONLINE PUBLICATION Bristol City Council v Mohamud Hassan and another and Bristol City Council v Jane Glastonbury | ONLINE PUBLICATION Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Cleveland Bridge Dorman Long Engineering Ltd | ONLINE PUBLICATION Northstar Land Ltd v Maitland Brooks and Jacqueline Brooks | ONLINE PUBLICATION Butler v Derby City Council |
[2006] EWCA Civ 656, 23 May 2006. Considers whether anything in the Housing Act 1985 s85 can prevent a judge from making such order for postponement of possession as he saw fit and whether a judge was obliged to set out a date for possession on the face of his order. Appeal by H against the form of suspended possession orders. H were two secure tenants who were in arrears with their rent. B sought suspended possession orders on terms that H paid modest instalments towards the arrears. H contended that the court should order H to give possession on a date to be fixed on application by the local authority. "Held": appeals allowed. Nothing in s85 of the Act limited the discretion of the judge to make an order for postponement of possession in the manner he saw fit and he was not obliged to set out a date for the possession on the face of his order. The judge could lawfully make an order setting out a date for possession but provided that that date would be postponed and the tenancy would continue so long as conditions in the order continued to be satisfied.