Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Alexander-David
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 April 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWCA Civ 259 |
| Date | 01 April 2009 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Scott Baker and Lord Justice Sullivan
A local housing authority which granted a tenancy to a minor who was homeless and in priority need held the premises in trust for the minor. For as long as the authority was the trustee, it could not lawfully serve a notice to quit on the minor.
The Court of Appeal so stated when allowing the appeal of Elyarna Alexander-David against the dismissal by Judge Powles, QC, in Willesden County Court on July 4, 2008, of her appeal against a possession order granted to Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council by District Judge Steel on Februa ry 11, 2008. The judge held that a lease of premises at 49 Norland House, 9 Queensdale Crescent, Notting Hill, London, granted by the council to her when aged 16 was a lease in equity to which the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 did not apply.
Mr Kelvin Rutledge for the council; Ms Kerry Bretherton for Miss Alexander-David
LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN said that the issue was how local housing authorities were to discharge their duty under the Housing Act 1996 to make accommodation available to homeless 16 or 17 year olds in priority need when section 1(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925 stated that minors wer e not capable of holding a legal estate in land, and by virtue of paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 1 to the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, any purported grant of a legal estate to such an applicant would not be effective to pass the legal estate, but would operate as a declaration t hat the premises were held in trust for the applicant.
The claimant aged 16 applied to the local authority for accommodation under the Housing Act 1996 because she was homeless. The council discharged its duty and entered an agreement on its standard from for adults, where the parties were referred to as landlord and tenant, which gave her a tenancy of the premises.
The 1925 Act did not prohibit the grant by the council of a legal estate to the claimant; it merely prevented her from holding such an estate.
An agreement with those consequences was not an unlawful fetter on the council's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Asif Ali v Michelle Humphries
...raise the point. 7 Mr Stark, in support of his argument has referred me to two other decisions of this court: Elyarna Alexander-David [2009] EWCA Civ 259 and Mountain v Hastings [1993] 2 EGLR 53. In both of those cases a point which bears some similarity to the point now raised was consider......
-
American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War.
...Violated, HOUS. CHRON., Nov. 29, 2000, at A12 (reporting on the incidents). (37.) See, e.g., Paul Krugman, Tea Parties Forever, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 13, 2009, at A21 (describing those "riots" as "fake grass roots" events that were "actually orchestrated by G.O.P. strategists"); see also Masters......