Hickey v London Borough of Haringey

Hickey v London Borough of Haringey

Paragraph 6(b) of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1985 was not satisfied because the head lease did not include a single provision for the lessor to obtain vacant possession either on expiry of a specified period or when required by the lessor; therefore, the sub-tenancy was not excluded from being a secure tenancy.

Parties
Defendant: Julie Hickey; Claimant: London Borough of Haringey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Secure Tenancies, Statutory Interpretation, Temporary Accommodation, Security of Tenure
Landlord and Tenant Law Housing Law Secure Tenancies Statutory Interpretation Temporary Accommodation Security of Tenure

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julie Hickey

Defendant

London Borough of Haringey

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sub-tenancy granted by the local authority was a secure tenancy under the Housing Act 1985
  2. 2 Proper construction of paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1985

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 6(b) of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1985 was not satisfied because the head lease did not include a single provision for the lessor to obtain vacant possession either on expiry of a specified period or when required by the lessor; therefore, the sub-tenancy was not excluded from being a secure tenancy.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • District judge’s order for possession of the premises discharged
  • Other appropriate orders to be made as circumstances require