Search for: "Housing Authority v. City Council"
Results 321 - 340
of 997
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Feb 2020, 8:57 am
Wallace v Manchester City Council (1998) 30 HLR 1111 was a social tenancy claim. [read post]
23 Feb 2020, 8:57 am
Wallace v Manchester City Council (1998) 30 HLR 1111 was a social tenancy claim. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 3:25 pm
Clark v Manchester City Council [2015] UKUT 129 (LC) Mr Clark had a licence for an HMO for not more than 5 occupants. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 9:27 am
Bank v. [read post]
13 Mar 2020, 7:08 am
EPA in the Supreme Court that the agency finally exercised that authority. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 6:58 am
Law School Admissions Council, Inc., No. [read post]
28 Mar 2021, 1:21 pm
At para 76 of the judgment, the Court came to an interpretation of Birmingham City Council v Ali & Others [2009] UKHL 36 (our note), that while Lady’s Hale’s comments were on whether an overcrowded property could remain suitable in the short term, without the council being in breach of its homeless duty by leaving the applicant there, these comments also applied to grant of relief: Although Lady Hale’s observations in these paragraphs… [read post]
26 Mar 2017, 12:56 pm
Of greatest guidance to local authority landlords in Article 8 cases is the series of seven principles laid down by Etherton LJ, as he then was, in Thurrock Borough Council v West (2012) EWCA Civ 1435. 12. [read post]
16 Nov 2014, 9:38 am
Sixthly, the decisions of this court in 2011, in Manchester City Council v Pinnock and Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell, extended the powers of the county court when hearing applications by a local authority to recover possession of a property in order to comply with article 8 of ECHR. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 10:06 am
In Westminster City Council v Haw [2002] EWHC 2073 (QB), Mr. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 8:56 am
North Coast Railroad Authority, S222472. [read post]
17 Sep 2021, 7:22 am
To that end it is necessary to align the expression of the core ideological foundations of the vanguard in terms that align theory to the times and the conditions in which society finds itself in this (what for them) is an an inevitable progress toward the ultimate goal for which this vanguard has been vested with superior authority to lead the nation. [read post]
26 May 2023, 1:52 pm
About the Author Daniel F. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 12:15 pm
The Supreme Court’s 1926 decision in Euclid v. [read post]
21 May 2017, 2:42 pm
The issues before the Supreme Court were: (1) Whether Ali v Birmingham City Council [2010] 2 AC 39 should be departed from in the light of Ali v United Kingdom (2016) 63 EHRR 20 and if so to what extent; (2) Whether the reviewing officer should have asked himself whether there was a real risk that the appellant’s mental health would be damaged by moving into the accommodation offered, whether or not her reaction to it was irrational, and if so, whether… [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 1:43 am
The appellant applied to register a playing field acquired in 1951 as a site for the erection of council houses as a town/village green under the Commons Act 2006, s 15(2). [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 9:10 am
The decision below: MA The claimants in MA – the first of the cases to come before the Divisional Court – must have been encouraged by the previous decision of the Court of Appeal in Burnip v Birmingham City Council, which had upheld a similar challenge on behalf of adults requiring overnight care and disabled children who were unable to share a bedroom. [read post]
26 Jul 2023, 4:34 pm
However, in July 2020, the San Diego City Council authorized a vote by the electorate on whether the 30-foot height limit in the Community Plan area should be removed. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
” There was an interesting decision in the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, SL v Westminster City Council & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 954, a challenge to a local authority’s refusal to provide the claimant with accommodation under the National Assistance Act 1948, s 21(1)(a). [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 8:33 am
The SCC noted that s.2(2) of the Federal Courts Act specifies that the Senate, the House of Commons, or any committee or member of either House is not a federal board, commission or other tribunal within the meaning of s.2(1). [read post]
