Divisional Court meaning

What was the background? Six prominent landlords — ARC, Cadogan & Grosvenor, Abacus, Wallace, John Lyon’s Charity and Portal Trust — commenced judicial review proceedings, alleging that three elements of the LFRA 2024 infringe A1P1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The dispute focused on leasehold enfranchisement: the statutory mechanism by which long leaseholders may purchase the freehold or extend their lease, devised to remedy the ‘wasting asset problem’, whereby leaseholds lose value as the term shortens despite tenants having paid sizeable premiums and ongoing maintenance charges. The impugned provisions were: a ceiling on ground rent set at 0.1% of the freehold vacant possession value for the purposes of enfranchisement calculations; the elimination of marriage value from enfranchisement premiums by proceeding on the basis that the tenant is not seeking to acquire the freehold; and the removal of tenants’ responsibility for landlords’ non-litigation costs in enfranchisement claims. It was agreed between the parties that these reforms would markedly reduce the...

Director of Public Prosecutions v Jinks [2024] EWHC 3341 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision underscores that proceedings commenced after the statutory limit are without jurisdiction and must be dismissed. For practitioners or parties assessing whether a prosecution is out of time, and in relation to CA 2003, s 127 or comparable enactments, the decision makes clear that the start of the limitation period driven by knowledge is not necessarily the same date as the decision to prosecute. The operative date is when all the evidence underpinning that decision first came within the prosecutor’s knowledge. The relevant prosecutor is, as here, the DPP as an office, not the particular individual who ultimately chose to prosecute, even if the function is delegated to one prosecutor and, on appeal, another later reconsiders the file. Accordingly, internal handovers or appellate reconsiderations do not reset the clock, and any delay risks extinguishing jurisdiction with the inevitable consequence of dismissal. The case therefore highlights the need for reasonably...

In this issue: Social housing Public procurement Governance Education Children’s social care Healthcare Planning Local government finance Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Social housing Sanctions for landlords who fail to provide ECRs to contract holders in Wales (Coastal Housing Group v Mitchell) The Divisional Court has determined that contract-holders in Wales do not owe rent unless, and until, their landlords supply them with a copy of the Electrical Condition Reports (ECRs) for their properties. This marks the first reported ruling on how the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 (RH(W)A 2016) should be read, following its commencement on 1 December 2022. The Act brought sweeping reforms to Welsh landlord and tenant law, fully displacing the framework originating in the Housing Acts 1985 and 1988. Among other changes, it introduced the terms ‘occupation contract’ (i.e. tenancy agreement) and ‘contract-holder’ (i.e. tenant). It also ushered in a comprehensive set of requirements aimed...

Careless or inconsiderate driving If someone drives a car carelessly on a road or in a public place, or acts without regard for other users of that road or place, they may commit the offence of careless or inconsiderate driving under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988). Under RTA 1988, s 3, the offence is triable summarily only. Elements of the offence of careless driving To be convicted, it must be shown that a person: drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration, for other persons using the road or public place Drive Although the RTA 1988 does not define driving, the courts have ruled that driving is a physical act that only an individual can perform. The Divisional Court has determined that the expression does not extend to a limited company (Richmond London Borough Council v Pinn and Wheeler...

ARCHIVED This Practice Note is no longer being updated. It is kept for historical interest and to give practitioners a quick snapshot of developments in extradition case law across 2019. The Note logs extradition appeal judgments month by month from January 2019. For key 2018 decisions, see Practice Note: Extradition appeals tracker—2018 decisions [Archived]. If you know the judgment date, use the list below or the links on the left-hand side of the screen to jump straight to the relevant table. Alternatively, search this Practice Note with [CTL]+[F] using the case name, citation, or a suitable term. Extradition appeal cases by month January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019 November 2019 December 2019 December 2019 Case: Asenov v Local Court of Arad Romania [2019] EWHC 3489 (Admin), [2019] All ER (D) 142 (Dec). Abstract/summary: Extradition—Proportionality....

Business interruption insurance This form of cover is commonly packaged and sold within standard commercial property policies. Ordinarily, business interruption protection only responds when disruption to, or interference with, operations directly stems from physical damage to insured property at the insured location. Some wordings, however, add ‘non-damage’ extensions that insure loss of income in other scenarios— for example, where entry to, or use of, the business premises is temporarily blocked or materially impeded by circumstances not involving property damage. In March 2020, after the coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdown, numerous firms sought to claim for such losses under their business interruption insurance, yet few received indemnity, largely because of uncertainty over how non-damage extensions should react to a nationwide outbreak of infectious disease. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), in consultation with policyholders and insurers, commenced and pursued a test case under the Financial Markets Test Case Scheme (the FCA test case). The first instance hearing proceeded before a Divisional Court in July 2020, with judgment subsequently delivered on 15 September 2020....