London Borough of Havering v Dove & Anor

London Borough of Havering v Dove & Anor

The judge arguably failed to properly analyse whether the property was the only or principal home, did not adequately consider the applicants' occupation and medical conditions, and did not properly exercise discretion regarding arrears and possession. These errors give the appeal a real prospect of success.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: London Borough of Havering; Applicant/defendant: Elaine Dove; Applicant/defendant: Evelyn Dove
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal From County Court Orders
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Secure Tenancy, Possession Proceedings, Adjournment of Trial, Issue Estoppel, Housing Benefit, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Civil Procedure Secure Tenancy Possession Proceedings Adjournment of Trial Issue Estoppel Housing Benefit +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Havering

Respondent/claimant

Elaine Dove

Applicant/defendant

Evelyn Dove

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal From County Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the property was the only or principal home of the tenants for the purposes of secure tenancy
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing an adjournment of the trial
  3. 3 Whether the judge properly exercised discretion under sections 84 and 85 of the Housing Act 1985 regarding possession and arrears

Ratio Decidendi

The judge arguably failed to properly analyse whether the property was the only or principal home, did not adequately consider the applicants' occupation and medical conditions, and did not properly exercise discretion regarding arrears and possession. These errors give the appeal a real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Permission to appeal against the orders of 20 April 2015 and 28 April 2015 is granted to Elaine Dove and Evelyn Dove