A person holds the silhouette of a family house in their hands

Social Housing Case Bulletin – November 2015

We are delighted to provide you with our monthly case law update which includes cases within the last month from the higher jurisdiction courts in England and Wales that are relevant to the affordable housing sector.

We trust that this update will be helpful and we welcome any queries or further help that we can provide by contacting the partners mentioned below.

Keeping abreast of the latest case law is an important aspect of advice to our clients in delivering the highest quality legal services and we trust you will find this a useful update within your business.

Hyde Housing Association Ltd v Layton

UKEAT/0124/15/MC
Employment Appeal Tribunal
11 September 2015

Employment – Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) – Acquired Rights Directive (ARD)

The question in this case was whether there could be a relevant transfer for TUPE purposes where an employee moved from an employment contract with one employer to an employment contract with several employers, including the original employer? Although Regulation 3(1)(a) of TUPE did not preclude a relevant transfer to multiple transferees, where the transferor remained liable for the Claimant’s employment the situation would not fall within the protection of TUPE or the ARD. The appeal was allowed and a finding that there had been no relevant transfer for TUPE purposes was substituted. Given the novelty and potential importance of the case, permission to appeal was granted to the Claimant.

Read more button

 

Kelton v Wiltshire County Council & ors

[2015] EWHC 2853 Administrative Court
9 October 2015

Town and country planning – Planning permission – Apparent bias

The Claimant challenged the grant of outline planning permission by Defendant Council for a scheme of residential dwellings, including affordable homes to be developed by a Housing Association. The judicial review was advanced on four grounds. The first ground related to the participation of a Councillor in the planning committee decision, who was also a director of the developer Housing Association. The Councillor’s participation in the decision to grant planning permission gave rise to an appearance of potential bias as his private interests were engaged. Judicial review was granted and planning permission quashed.

Read more button

 

Magenta Living v Brady

Birkenhead County Court
16 June 2015

Anti-social behaviour – Breach of injunction – Sentencing

This case involved the breaching of an anti-social behaviour injunction. The Defendant had threatened violence to an ex-neighbour in an area prohibited under the terms of the injunction. There was only one breach in over seven months and the Defendant had admitted to the breach in question. The judge handed down a custodial sentence of four months’ imprisonment, suspended as long as the terms of an extended injunction were complied with.

Read more button

 

Metropolitan Housing Trust v Taylor & Ors

[2015] EWHC 2897 Chancery Division
19 October 2015

Freezing orders – Particulars of claim – Striking out

The Claimant Housing Association obtained a freezing order and a prohibitory injunction against the Defendants. The injunction was given to restrain the Defendants from acting in a way that would damage the Claimant’s IT systems, but this was largely discontinued at a second hearing. The world-wide freezing order was granted against the first two Defendants in order to prevent the dissipation of assets. The Defendants applied to strike out certain sections of the particulars of claim. The judge examined each part of the claim in detail, resulting in some particulars of claim being struck out.

Read more button

 

Mossbank Homes Limited v Reece

Stockport County Court
23 August 2015

Anti-social behaviour – Breach of injunction – Sentencing

This case involved the breaching of an anti-social behaviour injunction. The Defendant was prohibited from public indecency under the terms of the injunction. She was proved to have breached those terms on eighteen separate occasions. The judge handed down a custodial sentence of twenty-three weeks’ imprisonment, suspended on the basis that the terms of an extended injunction were complied with fully.

Read more button