000			01772cab a2200205 4500
001			##L133606
008			060522n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u133606
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aJulie Hickey v Haringey London Borough Council
260			_c2006
520			_a[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
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1985 SCHED 1 PARA 6
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1985 SCHED 1 PARA 6(A)
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1985 SCHED 1 PARA 6 (B)
650	2	4	_aHICKEY V HARINGEY LBC
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/373.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c77110 _d77110