London Borough of Croydon v Wright [2007] EWHC 3465 (QB) (06 December 2007)

London Borough of Croydon v Wright [2007] EWHC 3465 (QB) (06 December 2007)

The County Court and High Court retained jurisdiction to consider relief against enforcement of a possession order where the challenge was based on alleged disability discrimination, notwithstanding s.89 Housing Act 1980. The refusal to adjourn and to grant interim protection was flawed because the judge erred in law regarding the definition of disability and failed to consider relevant evidence and timescales.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 3465 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: London Borough of Croydon; Defendant/appellant: Doreen Wright
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decisions Regarding Adjournment and Interim Injunction
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Disability Discrimination, Adjournment of Hearings, Interim Injunctions, Jurisdiction Under S.89 Housing Act 1980
Housing Law Discrimination Law Civil Procedure Possession Proceedings Disability Discrimination Adjournment of Hearings Interim Injunctions Jurisdiction Under S.89 Housing Act 1980

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Croydon

Claimant/respondent

Doreen Wright

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decisions Regarding Adjournment and Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the County Court and High Court had jurisdiction to grant relief notwithstanding s.89 Housing Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's alleged disabilities (dyslexia and diabetes) could amount to a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act
  3. 3 Whether there was a sufficient link between the alleged disability and the decision to enforce the possession order

Ratio Decidendi

The County Court and High Court retained jurisdiction to consider relief against enforcement of a possession order where the challenge was based on alleged disability discrimination, notwithstanding s.89 Housing Act 1980. The refusal to adjourn and to grant interim protection was flawed because the judge erred in law regarding the definition of disability and failed to consider relevant evidence and timescales.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the county court for a different judge to consider afresh the renewed application for permission to appeal from District Judge Fink