Powell and Others v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Waller |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWCA Civ 269 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C5/2009/1247,1389,2054,2615 & B2/2010/0230(A) |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 23 February 2010 |
[2010] EWCA Civ 269
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
Before: Lord Justice Waller
Case No: C5/2009/1247,1389,2054,2615 & B2/2010/0230(A)
Mr Jan Luba QC appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr A Arden QC, Mr J Manning, Mr Ashley QC, Mr R Darbyshire and Mr K Rutledge appeared on behalf of the Respondents
Lord Justice Waller:
There are at present listed before the Court of Appeal four cases in which the issue will be whether the county court should consider public law defences in possession proceedings brought by local authorities and, if so, the extent of that process. In three the occupiers are appellants. In the fourth, the local authority Manchester is the appellant. The issue is whether they should all be stayed pending a decision of the Supreme Court in a case called Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2009] EWCA 852.
In Pinnock the occupier is the appellant and the occupier was a demoted tenant and the issue in the Supreme Court will be whether a judicial review should have been conducted prior to the County Court making its final order for possession. Nine justices have been assembled to hear that case and it seems likely, as Mr Arden has submitted, that the nine have been assembled in order to consider previous decisions of the House of Lords in Kaye and Doherty. Mr Arden's submissions are, and he is counsel for Manchester in Pinnock, that in Pinnock all the major issues will be considered. It will not be limited simply to looking at the statutory scheme in relation to demoted tenants. Before me he represents Birmingham, making the submission that the appropriate order is that these appeals be stayed. He appears here also for Manchester on the Manchester appeal in this court and he has, as counsel for Manchester, advised them to change their mind as to whether there should be a stay of these appeals.
I am not going to pretend it is an easy question. One has to balance the costs of being here on an appeal and I do not overlook the costs that will be incurred, balancing that against what is likely to happen in the Supreme Court. The problem as I see it is that one cannot guarantee that the Supreme Court will consider certain of the major issues. For example in these appeals there is going to be an attack on whether judicial review was ever possible in the county court, what is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R CN v London Borough of Lewisham The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Interested Party)
... ... [2010] UKSC 45 , [2011] 2 AC 104 and Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell [2011] UKSC 8 , ... they have no duty, at the expense of others to whom they may have a duty. The threshold for ... ...
-
Matthew Jones v Canal & River Trust
... ... Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL ... Lord Justice Jackson ... [2010] UKSC 45 (" Pinnock "); Hounslow LBC v Powell [2011] UKSC 8 (" Powell ") and ... Etherton LJ, as he then was, in Thurrock Borough Council v West [2012] EWCA Civ 1435 ... ...
-
Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Britain & Others v The Charity Commission
... ... Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL (Transcript of the Handed ... 41 Mr Steele relies on Hounslow LBC v Powell [2011] 2 AC 186 , [2011] UKSC 8 ... ...
-
Powell and Others v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow and Others
...tenants occupying under introductory tenancies entered into under Chapter 1 of Part V of the Housing Act 1996. In the third, London Borough of Hounslow v Powell (" Powell"), the claim for possession was made against a person who was granted a licence of property under the homelessness regim......