London Borough of Haringey v Hines

London Borough of Haringey v Hines

The finding of fraud against Ms Hines was unjustified because the specific allegation was not put to her in cross-examination, violating principles of fairness. The evidence did not support a finding that Ms Hines dishonestly misrepresented her entitlement to the lease. Haringey's claim for damages for deceit fails, and the lease is not void nor rescindable on the pleaded grounds.

Parties
Claimant: The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Haringey; Defendant: Samantha Abigail Hines
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Ms Hines's appeal allowed; Haringey's claim dismissed; Haringey's cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Right to Buy, Secure Tenancy, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Damages, Ultra Vires, Innocent Misrepresentation
Property Law Local Government Law Civil Procedure Right to Buy Secure Tenancy Fraudulent Misrepresentation Damages Ultra Vires +1 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Haringey

Claimant

Samantha Abigail Hines

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ms Hines fraudulently misrepresented her occupation status to obtain a lease under the right to buy provisions
  2. 2 Whether the lease granted to Ms Hines was void as ultra vires
  3. 3 Whether Haringey was entitled to rescind the lease or claim damages for misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The finding of fraud against Ms Hines was unjustified because the specific allegation was not put to her in cross-examination, violating principles of fairness. The evidence did not support a finding that Ms Hines dishonestly misrepresented her entitlement to the lease. Haringey's claim for damages for deceit fails, and the lease is not void nor rescindable on the pleaded grounds.

Court Disposition

Ms Hines's appeal allowed; Haringey's claim dismissed; Haringey's cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Judge Yelton’s order dated 18 August 2009 set aside.
  • Haringey’s claim dismissed.