westminster city council v clarke

Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc. Westminster City Council v Clarke: HL 29 Apr 1992. Major Works. Found inside â Page 662Citizens Against Nuclear Disinformation in Denver Lorraine Anderson 5503 Marshall St Arvada , CO 80002 Owner . 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. Ticket for Lordâs Cricket Ground on 6 June 2021 provided by England and Wales Cricket Board (registered 15 July 2021). Westminster City Council v SSCGL and Mr Julian Cordani [2013] EWHC 23 (Amin) The Lord Mayor and the Citizens of Westminster v Addbins Ltd, Addison Lee PlC and John Griffin [2012] EWHC 37169 (QB). Mexfield Housing Cooperative Ltd v Berrisford [2012] 1 AC 955 Important. 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 ... Any visitors had to leave by then and he had to comply with the directions of the warden or his staff. Leases Cases. In the English Court of Appeal decision in The Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited v Vauxhall Motors Ltd Lewison LJ said that: ‘There are two elements to the concept of possession: (1) a sufficient degree of physical custody and control (‘factual possession’); (2) an intention to exercise such custody and control on one’s own behalf and for one’s own benefit (‘intention to possess’)’([2018] EWCA Civ 1100 (The Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited v Vauxhall Motors Ltd at [59]). 1961 Sir Anthony Clarke MR , Rix , Moore-Bick LJJ 2008 June 24, 25; Oct 30 Local governmentâPowersâAction by local authorityâLocal authority claiming civil injunction to control activities of alleged gang membersâInjunction sought to prevent â¦ 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. Venue: Rooms 5, 6 & 7 - 17th Floor, City Hall, 64 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QP. Found inside – Page 193In Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288, the House of Lords adopted a similar approach, but reached a different conclusion on the facts. The council provided hostel accommodation for homeless single men under an agreement ... Jones v Morgan [2001] EWCA Civ 995. Osborne Clarke LLP: The Sovini Group: Business in the community: Homes for Lambeth: OVO: The Stylist Group Ltd Cabinet Office (CO) HomeServe Membership Limited: Oxfam GB: The Telegraph: Cadent: Horwich Farrelly Solicitors: PA Consulting: The Tutu Foundation: CALA Group Ltd: Hotel Chocolat: PageGroup: The University of Edinburgh: Calderdale Council: House â¦ 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 council could change the accommodation or require Mr. Clarke to share his room. Hence there was actually a practical reason to deny exclusive possession, unlike in Aslan. If you'd like to learn how to create a random text generator, then check out the minimal generator template and the tutorial.It's easier than you'd think and is great fun :) I see no basis in They are, after all, terms in a written agreement and would normally be understood as the surest manifestation of the parties’ contractual intentions. Antoniak v Westminster City Council. Westminster City Council (WCC) provided hostel accommodation for homeless single persons. The agreement between WCC and Clarke was described as a license to occupy and it included a provision that Clarke could be required to change rooms or share his room with another occupier. C and D entered into an agreement for the hostel. He had to be back in his room by 11 pm. Mr Clarke occupied a room by an agreement which stated the council could change the accommodation without notice and require Mr Clarke to share the room with other homeless people. One such case was Westminster City Council v Clarke. In this House of Lords case, it was held that Westminster City Council had not granted exclusive possession to the occupant of a room in a homeless hostel. This was a different outcome to the two previous cases, as the council had never intended exclusive possession for the occupant. Abadeh v British Telecommunications plc. Tackling climate change in Westminster Find out how we're working to make our city carbon neutral by 2040. 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’ (Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 at 826). The agreement provided that C did not have exclusive possession. Found insideGreen see Green v. Westleigh Properties Ltd Westminster City Council v. Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288, HLK13.2.3 Weston v. Henshaw [1950] Ch 510 B7.6.4 Westvilla Properties Ltd v. Dow Properties Ltd [2010] EWHC 30 (Ch) K1.2.1 WG Clarke ... Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45; [2011] 2 A.C 104 (SC). Intention is an aspect of exclusive possession. Case and Comment 27 context of a fixed term tenancy (Ashhurn Anstalt v. Arnold [1989] Ch. 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 ... Southward Housing Cooperative Ltd v Walker [2015] EWHC 1615. In the light of those authorities, to some of which I will â¦ 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. 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 ... Retrofitting Soho: improving the sustainability of historic core areas. Control provisions can only be disregarded if the court decides that they are sham terms. Printed minutes PDF 109 KB. 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. The agreement was headed âLicence to occupyâ. The relevant party may be entitled subsequently to insist on its performance nevertheless’ ([33]). ). The agreement clearly states that it is not intended to create rights and obligations of a tenancy. Whether a contract creates a lease or a licence can have very important legal and regulatory consequences. 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. 1) [2001] Hamilton v Allied Domecq [2007] Hammer v â¦ 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. Walsh v â¦ (l-r) Counicllor Robert Cairns from the City of Edinburgh Council, Councillor Jim Clarke, from Belfast City Council, Councillor Jim James, from Cardiff City Council, Councillor Alan Bradley, from Westminster City Council and Councillor Paschal Donohue, from Dublin Council, hold onto a giant-sized postcard addressed to Wrigley's, the manufacturers of the chewing gum, as the five â¦ 45) that: ‘there is no simple all-embracing test’ for whether an occupier enjoys exclusive possession and that ‘the search for such a test would be a search for a chimera’. We have already seen that Lord Templeman in Street said that the courts should be ‘astute’ to detect and frustrate sham terms. THE INTERESTED PARTY â¦ particular, in Lord Templeman's assertion, in Westminster City Council v. Clarke [1992] 2 A.C. 288, 299A, that "a bed-sitting room with cooking facilities may be a separate dwelling-house even though bathroom and lavatory facilities might be elsewhere and shared with other people". Brad Sharp (NP) candidate for Eaton School District RE-2 District D (Weld County) MICHELLE SHARP (NP) candidate for Valley School District RE-1 (Logan County) Merri L. Sheh - District 3 Candidate (NP) candidate for Castle Pines City Council. The notice was issued because of complaints by residents and others that Mr. Clarke had caused nuisance and annoyance and noise. The intention was that residents should use the hostel as a . R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission (1995) House of Lords. Include enough of such clauses, drawn from a ‘shopping list’ of helpful provisions and the courts might be persuaded that the occupier lacks exclusive possession. 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 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 Lease or licence. 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. 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. In Sectorguard Plc v â¦ HL held that it had been legitimate for P to limit Dâs rights to those of the â¦ It also states that the accommodation can be changed without notice as the council directs and the â¦ Tower Hamlets London Borough Council v St Katherine-by-the-Tower Ltd [1982] RA 261 applied; Regent Lion Properties Ltd v Westminster City Council [1990] 2 EGLR 175 applied. 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. 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". Lord Templeman: It was in both D’s and P’s interest that occupants should not have exclusive possession or tenancy: If one room became uninhabitable e.g. Contact: Mick Steward; Head of Committee and Governance Services Tel: 020 7641 3134; Email: msteward@westminster.gov.uk. Events and â¦ Council Tax Support (or Reduction) is a local discount on your Council Tax bill. Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288. 229), and the Court of Appeal has questioned 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]). Found inside – Page xxviiUniversity of East London Higher Education Corp v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham [2004] EWHC 2710; ... 166 506 Webb v Russell (1789) 3 TR 393 317 Webb's Lease, Re [1951] Ch 808 459, 483 Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 ... It also provides links to case-notes and summaries. Found inside – Page 26418.2.1 in the private sector because, even though local authority landlords had 'a complete discretion with regard ... or (b) the occupier does not have exclusive possession of the premises (Westminster City Council v. Clarke (1992)). Territorial control is about who makes the decisions as to who can enter the property. Child and Family Law . Broomfield sells water for $3.36 per thousand, as much as you need. Found insideThis has been seen in a number of cases including Westminster City Council v Basson (1990),18 Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992],19 Ogwr Borough Council v Dykes [1989]20 and Camden London Borough Council v Shortlife Community ... R v Scarlett (1993) Court of Appeal. Also the objective of providing temporary accommodation until occupants could find elsewhere to live is more consistent with a license than a tenancy. The ‘substance and reality’ was that there was a single agreement giving the co-habitees exclusive possession of the flat. Found inside – Page 171... for exclusive possession was held to be of overriding significance by the House of Lords in Westminster City Council v. Clarke.270 Licences were granted to homeless men to occupy a hostel owned by the council on terms which reserved ... Parking. Westminster City Council v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran - Volume 108 1997] 1 AC 417 at 475, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle). Javad v Aqil [1991] 1 WLR 1007. In The Lord Mayor and the Citizens of the City of Westminster v Addbins Ltd and others [2012] EWHC 3716 ... (Christopher Clarke J in Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SARL [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm)). C.L.J. The fact that a transaction is ‘palpably artificial’ is relevant but not decisive (National Westminster Bank v Jones at [33]). There is a difficulty, however, because the courts cannot normally ignore the presence of clauses dealing with issues of control. 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. Mortgages pic v Pitt [1994] 1 AC 200. CPD & Events . In addition I accompanied the parties on a site visit to Lincolnâs Inn Field to examine the signs and conditions in all parts of the square. The City Council (C) owned a hostel for homeless men in which Mr. Clarke (D) occupied a room. Abbahall Ltd v Smee. Bayswater is an area within the City of Westminster in West London. 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. All three defendants found guilty of contempt of â¦ Committal proceedings relating to the breach of an injunction requiring Addison Lee advertisements on cigarette bins to be removed. Is exclusive possession a test or a label applied after the event? The useful generators list is a handy list of simple text generators on various topics.

westminster city council v clarke 2021