London Borough Of Barnet v Lincoln [2001] EWCA Civ 823 (18 May 2001)

London Borough Of Barnet v Lincoln [2001] EWCA Civ 823 (18 May 2001)

The judge conducted a thorough review of all circumstances and material, including the likelihood of future behaviour, and concluded that an immediate possession order was reasonable and necessary to protect neighbours from further nuisance. The exercise of discretion was not flawed and could not be challenged on appeal.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 823
Parties
Claimant/respondent: London Borough of Barnet; Defendant/applicant: Derek Lincoln
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Possession Order, Secure Tenancy, Antisocial Behaviour, Suspension of Possession Order, Judicial Discretion
Housing Law Landlord and Tenant Law Civil Procedure Possession Order Secure Tenancy Antisocial Behaviour Suspension of Possession Order Judicial Discretion

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Barnet

Claimant/respondent

Derek Lincoln

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in granting an immediate possession order rather than suspending it
  2. 2 Whether the judge gave proper weight to evidence of improved behaviour and prospects for the future
  3. 3 Whether the judge's exercise of discretion was flawed

Ratio Decidendi

The judge conducted a thorough review of all circumstances and material, including the likelihood of future behaviour, and concluded that an immediate possession order was reasonable and necessary to protect neighbours from further nuisance. The exercise of discretion was not flawed and could not be challenged on appeal.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • application dismissed
  • detailed assessment of the defendant's costs