London Borough of Croydon v Wright

London Borough of Croydon v Wright

The judge found that the refusal to adjourn was legally flawed due to errors regarding the statutory definition of disability, insufficient consideration of relevant delay, and failure to allow further evidence. The court had jurisdiction to grant relief despite s.89 Housing Act 1980, and the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

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 Against Refusal to Adjourn and Refusal to Grant Interim Injunction
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Discretionary Adjournment, Interim Injunction, Disability Discrimination Act, Housing Act S.89
Housing Law Disability Discrimination Possession Proceedings Discretionary Adjournment Interim Injunction Disability Discrimination Act Housing Act S.89

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 Against Refusal to Adjourn and Refusal to Grant Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to grant relief sought despite s.89 Housing Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether there was a link between alleged disability and decision to enforce possession
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to adjourn and refusal to grant injunction were legally flawed

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found that the refusal to adjourn was legally flawed due to errors regarding the statutory definition of disability, insufficient consideration of relevant delay, and failure to allow further evidence. The court had jurisdiction to grant relief despite s.89 Housing Act 1980, and the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

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