westminster city council v clarke


If these terms recorded what the parties’ contractual intention the couple would not have enjoyed exclusive possession. Found insideUnited Scientific Holdings v Burnley BC [1978] AC 904 Uratemp Ventures Ltd v Collins [2001] UKHL 43 12, 209, ... 72 West Country Cleaners (Falmouth) Ltd v Saly [1966] 1 WLR 1485 Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288 WG Clark ... v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1986] Cr App R 143; Moran v Westminster City Council [1988] 77 E&CR 294; DPP v Jones [1999] 2 WLR 625; and Torbay Borough Council v Cross [1995] JPN 682. This seems to imply a readiness on their part to find that control provisions are shams. Nzolameso v City of Westminster was a 2015 judgment by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that considered the way that local councils fulfil their duty to house the homeless. This was approved by the UK Supreme Court in the same case ([2019] UKSC 46 at [42] per Lord Briggs) and corroborates the statement in Gray & Gray that ‘some kind of conscious will to control [the] occupancy and to defend it against all comers’ is a requirement for exclusive possession (Gray & Gray [4.1.63]). On 13 April 1988 the Council gave Mr. Clarke notice terminating his licence. Workshop: Direct Labour Past and Present-The Answer to the Housing Crisis, Construction Training and Low Energy Building?. The City Council (C) owned a hostel for homeless men in which Mr. Clarke (D) occupied a room. Sign Code Update - Get updates on the Sign Code update, which addresses signs as a means of visual communication for the public and enables the use of signs to identify businesses, services and other activities within the city. A. Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288 House of Lords Westminster City council ran a hostel which contained 31 single rooms for housing homeless men. Family Law Reports . Other content © 2020 by CUHK LAW. WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL Defendant - and - MRS CANHAM Interested Party _____ J U D G M E N T . In April 2013 the national Council Tax Benefit scheme was abolished and in its place every council in England has a local scheme for reducing the Council Tax charge payable by people on low incomes. Hence there was actually a practical reason to deny exclusive possession, unlike in Aslan. Found insideThe Trust did not retain such control over the premises as was inconsistent with Mr. Bruton having exclusive possession, as was the case in Westminster City Council v. Clarke [1992] A.C. 288. The only rights which it reserved were for ... There is a difficulty, however, because the courts cannot normally ignore the presence of clauses dealing with issues of control. Cllr Mike Davies – Bristol City Council George Clarke – Architect and Presenter of George Clarke’s Council House Scandal John Boughton – Social Historian and Author of Municipal Dreams: The Rise and Fall of Council Housing Paul Watt – Professor of Urban Studies, Birkbeck University Duncan Bowie – Senior Lecturer in Spatial Planning, University of Westminster Laura … Jeslin Shahrezaei (NP) candidate for Lakewood City Council Ward 1. Appeal Sham terms are mere ‘dressing up’ (. Found inside – Page 100Sole occupancy of land is not the same as exclusive possession (Westminster City Council v Clarke (1992)). The court will look at the nature of the accommodation when deciding if there is a lease. In Clarke there was no exclusive ... I see no basis in R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission (1995) House of Lords. In fact, however, there is ‘a strong presumption that the parties to what appears to be perfectly proper agreements, intend them to be effective, and that they intend to honour and enjoy their respective obligations and rights’ (National Westminster Bank v Jones No HC 1999 14155 at [46] per Neuberger J.). International Family Law Journal . The Telegraph reported that a Westminster … The following cases are reproduced in Leading Planning Cases: Stringer v Minister of Housing and Local Government. The Queens Bench Divisional Court, in the case of Westminster City Council V Riding on 19 July, held that the word 'Litter' in section 87(1) of the Clarke claimed he was a secured tenant and entitled to the protections of the Housing Act 1985. WCC claimed the conditions within the agreement were not a sham to avoid conferring statutory protections upon the occupiers of the hostel. The conditions were necessary for the proper effective running of the hostel. University of Westminster 18 Jul 2019 . 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersWestminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288 HL The real question in these cases … Westminster Forward – Get updates on efforts to update the city's Comprehensive Plan. The agreement allowed the owner to allow others into occupation of the flat and even to live there himself. Found inside – Page 770The conditions of occupancy support the view that Mr. Clarke was not in exclusive occupation of room E. He was expressly ... The decision in Westminster City Council provides an interesting contrast with that in Street v Mountford, ... Aslan v Murphy. Found inside317_90_2207 West v Telford and Wrekin Borough Council [2006] 11 CL 346 18.10 Western Excavating(ECC) Limited v Sharp [1978] IRLR 27 10.56 Westminster City Council v Cabaj [1996] IRLR 399 (CA) 10.45 Westminster City Council v Clarke ... Judgement for the case Westminster City Council v Clarke. Found inside – Page x... v Gurney [1944] 2 All ER 472..............................................................37, 43 Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher [1995] 3 WLR 772....................................1, 9 Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 ... Found insideThomas v Sorrell (1673) Vaugh 330 (Ex Ch) 413, 425 Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752 (CA) 181, 184, ... Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288 (HL) 248, 253 Whatman v Gibson (1838) 9 Sim 196 (Ch) 336,339 Wheeldon v ... Found inside – Page 259... ( C.A. ) . life , particularly sleeping , cooking and washing : Curl 127 See e.g. , Westminster City Council v . Clarke [ 1992 ] 1 v . Angelo [ 1948 ) ? All E.R. 189 , ( C.A. ) . All E.R. 695 , ( H.L. ) . 112 Otter v . Books and eBooks. Found insidePARA Welsh v Greenwich London Borough Council ( 2000 ) 81 P & CR 144 , [ 2000 ] 3 EGLR 41 , ( 2000 ] 49 EG 118 , CA 416 ... 272 Estates Gazette 1279 , [ 1985 ] JPL 102 , HL 742 , 745 Westminster City Council v Clarke ( 1992 ] 2 AC 288 ... for the London County Council: Former constituency; Created: 1889; 1949: Abolished: 1919; 1965: Member(s) 3: Created from: Bow and Bromley and Poplar South: Replaced by : Poplar South: Poplar was a constituency used for elections to the London County Council between 1889 and 1919, and again between 1949 and the council's abolition, in 1965. Found inside – Page xxviii539,541 Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288 . . .321–2 Whaley, Re [1908] 1 Ch 615... 10–1 Whatman v Gibson (1838) 9 Sim 196 . . .484 Wheeldon v Burrows [1879] 12 Ch D 31... 78,412, 414,419–24, 427, 429–32,445,449, ... Reset Password; Sell Your Notes ; Law Cases; Become A Law Tutor; … Council Tax Support (or Reduction) is a local discount on your Council Tax bill. Section 208(1) of the Housing Act 1996 requires all local housing authorities to secure accommodation within their own district "so far as reasonably practicable". Family Law . If a landowner agrees to allow someone else to occupy his or her property, the occupier is either a tenant or a licensee. P let D have a room in a hostel as he was homeless, it could oblige him to share his room with other homeless people at any given point and could be evicted if he caused nuisance to other residents immediately, or otherwise if he caused nuisance. There is no additional requirement for the applicant to prove that a contemnor intended to breach, or knew that he was breaching, the court order (Masri). The injunction required the removal of all of the cigarette bins erected without advertisement consent and displaying the logo of the corporate defendants, within 14 days of the date of the order, namely by 29 June 2012. Westminster City Council v Duke of Westminster and Others Council tenants have won their battle with aristocrats who want them off their land. 1997] 1 AC 417 at 475, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle). If the landowner never relied on the suspect control provision this is a sign that the clause may be a sham (Antoniades v Villiers ([1997] 1 AC 417 at 475, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle). Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] under agreement entitled ‘licence’. In Antoniades v Villiers the owner of a flat allowed a couple into occupation. The breach alleged was that: “Within the last 10 years and without the benefit of planning permission, the material change of use of the … Criminal Cases. Use tab to navigate through the menu items. Westminster City Council. The case of Facchini a Bryson [1952] 1 T.L.R. On the other hand, in Camelot Guardian Management Ltd v Khoo Butcher J. observed that: ‘it has to be borne in mind that not every departure from the terms of a contract and how it is operated indicates that the relevant agreement was a pretence when entered into. Court of Protection Law Reports . The tests appear simple, but appearances are deceptive. In National Westminster Bank v Jones said that a finding of sham connotes ‘a degree of dishonesty’ (at [40]). Lease or licence. But the classification of the agreement as a lease does not depend upon any intention additional to that expressed in the choice of terms. Ticket for Royal London Cup at Lord’s Cricket Ground on 19 August 2021 provided by England and Wales Cricket Board (registered 25 … Discouraging a ‘shopping list’ approach and refusing to awards marks for drafting imply that the courts are prepared to ignore, or downplay the significance of, any control provisions included in the agreement. HL held that it had been legitimate for P to limit D’s rights to those of the … v Snaith [1989] 1 QB 486 that courts decided that the fact that the defendant had exclusive possession of the property concerned, was indicative of the presence of a lease and not merely a licence. Councillors and meetings. Cited – Westminster City Council v Clarke HL 29-Apr-1992 An occupant of a hostel for homeless and vulnerable single men had only a licence to occupy the room, and was not a tenant. in R v Westminster City Council, Ex p Hutton, tried and reported with R v Birmingham City Council, Ex p Quietlynn Ltd (1985) 83 LGR 461, 517. R v Scarlett (1993) Court of Appeal. Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 A.C. 406 . Found inside526, 527 Westminster CC v Clarke [1992] 2 AC... 199 Westminster City Council and Kent Valuation Committee v Southern Rly Co [1936] AC 511... 514 Westminster Council v Southern Railway Company [1936] AC 511... 224 Wheat v E. Lacon & Co ... Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1988] 2 All ER 147. A council finally got successfully judicially reviewed for failing to follow the Act and statutory guidance with regard to ignoring human assistance in meeting identified needs (it also managed to fail to follow the logic of its own forms, incidentally!). Found inside – Page 29Following the decision in Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 24 HLR 360, HL (see below), it is probable that if this case were to be decided today it would not be the personal nature of the relationship that was decisive; ... Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] Evidence Mr. Clarke, being a man in need with no home, has not completed obligations the hostel for homeless asked him to complete, and as a result, the hostel asked the complainant to leave the premise. So too was the fact that the agreement was not assignable. R v Lord Chancellor, ex p Child Poverty Action Group, R v DPP, ex p Bull [1998] 2 All ER 755, [1999] 1 WLR 347. In Westminster City Council v Clarke ([1992] 2 A.C. 288, HL) the council and C entered into an agreement that gave C the right to occupy a room in a hostel for homeless, single men. We hold that the trial court applied the proper standard in determining that the rezoning action by the City Council was proper. The decision of your Lordships' House in Westminster City Council v. Clarke [1992] A.C. 288 is a good example of the importance of background in deciding whether the agreement grants exclusive possession or not. Mr. Clarke decided that he had a tenancy over the room and by asking R (on the application of Thurman) v Lewisham London BC (2003) unreported, Admin. Leases leases introduction many of the questions you will be dealing with in land law questions will relate to leaseholds rather than freeholds. But that is not so. Found inside – Page ccxWestminster City Council v Basson (1991) 23 H.L.R. 225; (1991) 62 P. & C.R. 57; [1991] 1 E.G.L.R. 277; [1990] E.G. 141 (C.S.) ... (1984) 81 L.S.G. 3501; (1984) 128 S.J. 783 HL 22-022 Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 A.C. 288; ... Leases Cases. A landowner exercises supervisory control when the agreement gives them the power to intensively regulate the occupier’s activities in the property. Bayswater is an area within the City of Westminster in West London. flooded, the council could move the person staying in that room into another one that could be shared. So, ‘a skilful draftsman must, in appropriate circumstances, be allowed to succeed’ (Crancour Ltd v Da Silvaesa ((1986) 52 P & CR 204 at 289 per Purchas LJ). Purchas LJ said that ‘the effect in law of the agreement must depend upon its construction in accordance with the normal rules in the context of its factual matrix and genesis.’ (Crancour Ltd v Da Silvaesa at [56]). 9. Upcoming: Recent … On 15 June 2012, Westminster City Council sought, and was granted, an injunction by Edwards-Stuart J, against the corporate defendants. Simplex GE (Holdings) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment. 1961 Sir Anthony Clarke MR , Rix , Moore-Bick LJJ 2008 June 24, 25; Oct 30 Local government—Powers—Action by local authority—Local authority claiming civil injunction to control activities of alleged gang members—Injunction sought to prevent … Part III of the Housing Act 1985 which begins at section 58and ends with section 78 requires a local housing authority toprovide accommodation to certain persons who are homeless and inneed. exclusive possession, term and rent in the landmark case of Street v. Mountford [1985] A.C. 809, the issue of exclusive possession has twice entertained the House of Lords (A.G. Securities Ltd. v. Vaughan [1990] 1 A.C. 417 and Westminster City Council v. Clarke [1992] 2 W.L.R. Found inside – Page xvi... Re, Swinburne-Hanham v Howard [1933] Ch 29; [1932] All ER Rep 277 208, 216,225 Western Bank v Schindler [1977] Ch 1 213 Westminster CC v Basson (1991) 62 P & CR 57 97 Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288 95–7 Weston v ... “This is a very special case which depends on the peculiar nature of the hostel maintained by the council, the use of the hostel by the council, the totality, immediacy, and objectives of the powers exercisable by the council and the restrictions imposed on Mr. Clarke. The statement needs to be understood in the context of previous This was a different outcome to the two previous cases, as the council had never intended exclusive possession for the occupant. Report it. *1961 Birmingham City Council v Shafi and another Court of Appeal 30 October 2008 [2008] EWCA Civ 1186 [2009] 1 W.L.R. The parties have consciously agreed to include written terms which do not reflect their true bargain. This is an extreme case where contractual interpretation requires the court to disregard written terms. This page provides a list of cases cited in our Criminal Law Lecture Notes, as well as other cases you might find useful. Found inside – Page 662Citizens Against Nuclear Disinformation in Denver Lorraine Anderson 5503 Marshall St Arvada , CO 80002 Owner . We the undersigned petition Westminster City Council to request the Cabinet to reconsider its decision to introduce West End evening and Sunday parking charges before their planned introduction on 9th January 2012 in view of the considerable harm that the proposed charges will cause to residents, businesses and visitors. Rights reserved by the landlord over the property are not pretences if the serve a genuine purpose, The City Council (C) owned a hostel for homeless men in which Mr. Clarke (D) occupied a room, C and D entered into an agreement for the hostel, The agreement was headed ‘Licence to occupy’, The agreement clearly states that it is not intended to create rights and obligations of a tenancy, It also states that the accommodation can be changed without notice as the council directs and the occupier can be required to share a room, Following complaints by other residents the C sought to remove D, D argued that the agreement was a lease and C thus could only remove him in the contrary to statutory prohibitions, The grant of exclusive possession would be inconsistent with the C’s purpose in providing accommodation, If there was exclusive possession the C would not be able to supervise and control the occupiers, C should be allowed to move occupiers if rooms were unsuitable, Occupiers were also barred from having visitors, This is a ‘very special case’ due to the totality, immediacy and objectives of powers exercisable by C and restrictions imposed on D, This decision will not allow a landlord to free himself from the Rent Acts merely by adopting or adapting the language of the licence to occupy. Clarke Hall and Morrison on Children . Mr. Clarke, by his defence, claimed to be a “secure tenant” C and D entered into an agreement for the hostel. In support of the application several authorities are relied on, namely, Seekings v Clarke [1961] 59 LGR 268; Hurst and Agu(?) Westminster City Council v Clarke. OPUS 2 DIGITAL TRANSCRIPTION A P P E A R A N C E S THE FIRST CLAIMANT appeared in person on behalf of himself and the SECOND CLAIMANT. give defendant rights of tenant. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 imposes a number of significant obligations on landlords of dwelling houses in the United Kingdom. 1386 restated this position and held that, “provided the other essential characteristics of a lease were present, the grant of exclusive … It is as well to bear in mind the words of Richard Southwell in Mehta v Royal Bank of Scotland ((2000) 32 H.L.R. Child and Family Law . He had to be back in his room by 11 pm. In broad terms, tenants have the high degree of control over the property that is consistent with a form of property ownership. Occupants were there as "licensees" with no exclusive rights of occupation and their licences terminable on a 7's day notice or sooner if in breach of the rules. Found inside – Page clxxvii2.65 Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288; [1992] 2 WLR 229; [1992] 1 All ER 695, HL . ... 4.49 Westminster City Council v Duke ofWestminster [1991] 4 All ER 136; reversed (1992) 24 Housing LR 572 . The fact that a transaction is ‘palpably artificial’ is relevant but not decisive (National Westminster Bank v Jones at [33]). Sham terms are mere ‘dressing up’ (Antoniades v Villiers 1997] 1 AC 417 at 475, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle). Oxbridge Notes is operated by Kinsella Digital Services UG. he was given notice terminating licence. Court of Appeal. A blog for academics, practitioners, students and anyone with an interest in property law and policy, Private sector leases in the United Kingdom, for example, are likely to be assured shorthold tenancies and to be regulated by the, In the English Court of Appeal decision in, This was approved by the UK Supreme Court, Purchas LJ said that ‘the effect in law of the agreement must depend upon its construction in accordance with the normal rules in the context of its factual matrix and genesis.’ (, So, ‘a skilful draftsman must, in appropriate circumstances, be allowed to succeed’ (, Lord Templeman warned of this possibility and said that the court should be ‘be astute to detect and frustrate sham devices and artificial transactions whose only object is to disguise the grant of a tenancy and to evade the Rent Acts’ (, The parties have consciously agreed to include written terms which do not reflect their true bargain. In the light of those authorities, to some of which I will … In Crancour Ltd v Da Silvaesa , Purchas LJ usefully summarised the guidance offered by Lord Templeman in Street as to factors that the courts should ignore in reaching their decision: the description of the agreement chosen by the parties; the actual subjective intention of the parties; the exercise or failure to exercise rights provided by the agreement by one, either or both the parties to the agreement is not of decisive importance. Pleasure Ltd) and others) (Respondents) v Westminster City Council (Appellant) before Lord Neuberger, President Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Reed Lord Toulson JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 19 July 2017 Heard on 11 May 2017. Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd. In Street v Mountford Lord Templeman said that the test for whether an agreement creates a lease is to ask whether it: (a) gives the occupier exclusive possession of the property; and (b) does so for a certain term. RA 66 2014 – Harris v Grace (VO)RA 60 2014 – Wootton v Gill (VO) RA 29 & 31 2014 – Westminster City Council v UKI (Kingsway) Ltd & Dunlevey (VO) RA 26 2014 – Double Maxim Brewery Ltd v Smith (VO) RA 20 2014 – Kotecha v McKillop (VO) RA 15 2014 – Redrose Ltd v Thomas (VO) RA 08 2014 – McDonough (VO) v O’Keeffe. Committal proceedings relating to the breach of an injunction requiring Addison Lee advertisements on cigarette bins to be removed. Major Works. Gerard Clarke Year of call: 1986 ‘His ability to condense and summarise in minimal paperwork is almost poetic - the judicial comments are always very positive about his skeleton arguments’ Chambers UK 2017 +44 (0)20 7404 5252 [email protected]. In this post I use ‘landowner’ for the person who is either landlord or licensor and ‘occupier’ for the person who is either tenant or licensee. But the […] Gabe … Diplock LJ goes on to explain, in the same passage, that in a sham arrangement the parties have a common intention that the sham terms ‘are not to create the legal rights and obligations which they give the appearance of creating’. Found inside – Page xx... 10 CP 402 Welsh v Greenwich London Borough Council [2000] 3 EGLR 41 Wessex Reserve Forces & Cadets Association v White [2005] EWHC 983 Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288 Westminster City Council v HSBC Bank plc [2003] ... Parkins v.Westminster City Council [1998] 13 EG 145. ). Case and Comment 27 context of a fixed term tenancy (Ashhurn Anstalt v. Arnold [1989] Ch. Westminster City Council v Clarke. In marginal cases, a finding of exclusive possession may be a label applied by the courts after they have decided that the arrangement belongs on one side or the other of the lease / licence divide. Some of the occupants had personality disorders or physical disabilities. claimed he was secure tenant protected by Housing Act 1985. house. 1). There is a large amount of case law about how a lease is to be distinguished from a licence. In Westminster City Council v Clarke the council and Mr Clarke entered into an agreement that gave Mr. Clarke the right to occupy a room in a hostel for homeless, single men. Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288: Leases Cases: Aslan v Murphy [1990] 1 WLR 766: Leases Cases: Street v Mountford [1986] Conv 39: Leases Cases: Our International Websites. All content provided by LexisNexis Found inside – Page xixWallis Fashion Group Ltd v CGU Life Assurance (2000) 81P&CR 393 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Wallis's Cayton Bay Holiday Camp Ltd v Shell-Mex and BP Ltd [1975] QB 94 . ... 92 Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288 . If the landowner never relied on the suspect control provision this is a sign that the clause may be a sham (, We have already seen that Lord Templeman in, In fact, however, there is ‘a strong presumption that the parties to what appears to be perfectly proper agreements, intend them to be effective, and that they intend to honour and enjoy their respective obligations and rights’ (, said that ‘[t]he exercise of construction must be carried out on the basis that the provisions of the agreement are genuine unless, from their very terms, they appear to be consistent with a sham agreement as defined in the speech of Lord Diplock in, It is as well to bear in mind the words of Richard Southwell in, All copyright and trademarks in content on this site are owned by their respective owners. Primarily on whether it is personal in its nature or not.’ ([1971] 1 WLR 612 at 617).
Best Mountain Bike Under 300 Uk, Lenovoemc Iomega Drivers, Don't Forget Your Toothbrush, Shericka Jackson Jogging, Thinking Of You Sympathy Quotes, Difference Between Burgess And Hoyt Model, Zero Carbon Cambridge, Asics Metaracer Weight, Are German Shepherds Expensive, Quotes About Fake Marriage,