Pursuant to section 21A of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988), a notice pursuant to HA 1988, s 21 cannot be served in respect of a dwelling house in England let on an assured shorthold tenancy where a landlord

A residential tenant will usually enjoy statutory protection with the result that only the execution of a court order by the bailiff can require him to leave the premises. This is the case, however egregious any breach of covenant on the tenant’s part, be it anti-social behaviour or a persistent failure to pay rent. Protection may arise in a number of ways. If the tenant occupies the premises as his only or principal home then he will usually have the protection of the Housing Act 1985 (HA 1985) (in the case of most public sector landlords) or the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) (in the case of most private landlords). Each Housing Act contains exceptions to that general rule of protection, examples in the case of private landlords being where the rent exceeds £100,000 per annum or conversely where it is less than £1,000 in Greater London or £250 elsewhere (which will usually be

It is assumed that the tenant has left the property voluntarily and that the tenancy has come to a lawful end. It is also assumed that the landlord is not on notice that the goods may belong to someone other than the tenant, otherwise consideration will need to be given to contacting the possible third-party owner if practicable. The risk to be guarded against The potential risk in disposing of the goods is that a claim could be brought for their loss. Of course, it is also conceivable that a claimant might allege that the goods were extravagantly valuable, or allege that goods were lost which never in fact existed. In Diaz v Karim it was

Under section 1 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) there is a presumption that a person has capacity unless proved otherwise. The test as set out in MCA 2005, s 2 asks whether the person has an impairment or disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain, whether temporary or permanent, and whether the person is unable to make the decision in question because of that impairment. The question of capacity is specific to the decision in question. Under MCA 2005, s 3, a person is considered to lack capacity if they are unable to understand the information relevant to the decision, to retain that information, to use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision, or communicate the decision. The service of a notice to quit, notice seeking

As explained in Practice Note: Payment of legacies, the personal representatives may obtain a valid receipt from the incapacitated legatee's deputy or attorney under a lasting power of attorney. If there is no

In answering this Q&A, we have assumed that the injunctive factual findings were properly reasoned and expressed. The question asks whether the factual findings made in injunctive proceedings may be relied upon in subsequent proceedings under the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), which could encompass either public or private law proceedings. The initial response is to say that such findings may be relied upon, but this then leads to the question of whether or not those findings should be re-opened. It is well-established that issue estoppel does not apply in family law. Re ZZ provides guidance from Munby P on when reviews of earlier findings should be permitted. Having reviewed the authorities, the President re-affirms the pre-existing three-stage

Case study One party to a marriage (A) without the knowledge of the other party (B) filed a petition containing serious allegation against B, who,  being unaware of A’s petition then filed his own petition. Being unaware of A’s petition B did not file an acknowledgment of service indicating an intention to defend within the prescribed time limits. Can B file an acknowledgment of service out of time to say that he does not admit the allegations or would that void his cross-petition? Will B have to defend the original petition and seek to have his cross petition upheld? Petitions for divorce Divorce proceedings are commenced by filing a petition in Form D8. The petition must contain particulars which are sufficient to show why the applicant is entitled to a decree of divorce but but should be as concise as possible consistent with providing the

The procedural provisions relating to applications for a decree of divorce are contained within Part 7 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955. The application is started by issuing of Form D8. FPR 2010, PD 7A sets out detailed provisions as to the content of the application. FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 7.8 provides that the application must be served on the respondent, accompanied by a form for acknowledging service, a notice of proceedings, and where applicable, a copy of the statement of arrangements for children. Within seven days of receipt of the application, the respondent must file an acknowledgment of service (FPR

Non-molestation orders are made under section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) and the rules governing the court process are contained in Part 10 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 (FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 10). There is no provision in FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 10 that deals with applications to the court to adjourn hearings. Accordingly, the application would be made under FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 18 which is the default procedure for applications within proceedings under the rules. An application made under FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 18 in connection with proceedings under FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 10 should be made on Form

In Tattersall v Tattersall, the husband had applied to vary an order for periodical payments where the wife sought to enforce the order. On the husband’s ground of appeal that the judge should not have determined the wife's application to enforce until his variation application had been determined, Moylan LJ said (at para [32]): ‘In my view there is no principle which requires a judge to adjourn an enforcement application pending

It is assumed that this Q&A is asking about personal service of a divorce petition, given the reference to the ‘petitioner’. In the first instance, a divorce petition will usually be served by first class post on a respondent, although Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 6.4 provides that it is permissible to serve a divorce petition by way of the following other options: • personal service in accordance with FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 6.7 • other service which provides for delivery on the next business day in accordance with FPR 2010, PD 6A • where FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 6.11 applies (where the respondent has a solicitor acting for them, and the applicant has been notified in writing that the solicitor is instructed by the respondent to accept service of the application), by way of document exchange (DX) See

Land Registry Form AP1 is the prescribed form of application for use on all occasions where no other application form is prescribed. It is the required form when applying to register any of the principal forms of disposition affecting registered estates, such as a transfer, assent, charge or lease of such an estate, or a transfer, assent or sub-charge of