Nottingham City Council v Thames [2002] EWCA Civ 1098 (26 July 2002)

Nottingham City Council v Thames [2002] EWCA Civ 1098 (26 July 2002)

Section 152 of the Housing Act 1996 does not extend to protect local authority staff working in a housing office from anti-social behaviour unless there is a sufficient connection between the protected person and specific residential premises; mere proximity or administrative function is insufficient. The decision...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1098
Parties
Appellant: Nottingham City Council; Respondent: Clifton Thames
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Anti Social Behaviour, Statutory Interpretation, Local Authority Powers
Housing Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Anti Social Behaviour Statutory Interpretation Local Authority Powers

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nottingham City Council

Appellant

Clifton Thames

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 152 of the Housing Act 1996 allows a local authority to obtain an injunction with a power of arrest to protect its staff in a housing office from anti-social behaviour by a non-tenant.
  2. 2 Whether there is a sufficient nexus between the protected person and residential premises as required by section 152.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 152 of the Housing Act 1996 does not extend to protect local authority staff working in a housing office from anti-social behaviour unless there is a sufficient connection between the protected person and specific residential premises; mere proximity or administrative function is insufficient. The decision in Enfield LBC v B is binding and precludes a broader interpretation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order for costs
  • Permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused