London & Quadrant Housing Trust v Root [2005] EWCA Civ 43 (12 January 2005)

London & Quadrant Housing Trust v Root [2005] EWCA Civ 43 (12 January 2005)

The judge correctly applied section 9A of the Housing Act 1988, considered the ongoing and serious effect of the nuisance on neighbours and staff, and was entitled to refuse suspension of the possession order given the tenant's continued denial, non-cooperation, and the severity of the past conduct.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 43
Parties
Claimant/respondent: London & Quadrant Housing Trust; Defendant/appellant: Lorraine Root
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court Possession Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Anti Social Behaviour, Suspension of Possession Orders, Grounds for Possession, Effect of Anti Social Behaviour Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

Claimant/respondent

Lorraine Root

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court Possession Order

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing to suspend the possession order against the tenant in light of an anti-social behaviour order against her partner
  2. 2 Whether the effect of nuisance on neighbours and the landlord was properly considered under section 9A of the Housing Act 1988

Ratio Decidendi

The judge correctly applied section 9A of the Housing Act 1988, considered the ongoing and serious effect of the nuisance on neighbours and staff, and was entitled to refuse suspension of the possession order given the tenant's continued denial, non-cooperation, and the severity of the past conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Possession order stands as an outright order (not suspended)
  • Costs awarded against appellant on standard terms, subject to legal aid assessment