*Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Housing Homeless person. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appellant's appeal against a finding that the local authority's housing duty to her had been discharged, held that the reviewing officer had been entitled to find that there was no medical evidence that a property of its type would have the consequence that the appellant's mental health would be so affected by it as to make it reasonable for her to refuse to accept it in all the circumstances of the case. The court also confirmed the finding in the case of Ali v Birmingham City Council[) that art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights had no application in the context of the .

Brennan v Prior and others

Costs Order for costs. The Chancery Division, allowed the third to sixth defendants' application under CPR40.12 seeking clarification or amendment of an order for costs made following the trial of a probate action concerning a will. The amount of the claimant's personal liability for the costs of the third to sixth defendants under the order was not limited by reference to the amount of her pecuniary legacy. The court exercised its inherent power under CPR 40BPD 4.5 that the order be amended to add words to the order to ensure any ambiguity in the order was removed.

JMMB Merchant Bank Limited (Formerly Capital and Credit Merchant Bank Ltd) v Real Estate Board

Mortgage Charge. The appeal was concerned with the interpretation of s31 of the Real Estate (Dealers and Developers) Act 1987 (REDDA). The Privy Council held that a charge which a vendor created in favour of the respondent Real Estate Board, under s31(4) of REDDA, was valid without its registration in the Companies Register. Further, s31(5) of REDDA conferred the ranking on the charge and not on the sums secured by a more general charge which the authorised financial institution could prove to have been advanced to fund such construction and works.

Jackson v Secretary of State for the Communities and Local Government

Town and country planning Development. The appellant appealed against the decision of the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State, affirming the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development on the basis that he was deprived of the four year limitation period in of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 due to his deliberate concealment. The Planning Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the principle laid down in Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another () had not been replaced by ss 171BA to 171BC of the Act and the inspector had not failed to apply that principle correctly.

Jamaican Redevelopment Foundation Inc v Real Estate Board

Mortgage Priority of mortgagees. The appeal concerned the true construction of ss26(1)(b) and 31(5) of the Real Estate (Dealers & Developers) Act 1987 in Jamaica, which concerned the priority of charges over land. The Privy Council, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the expression 'all other mortgages and charges' in s31(5) of the Act meant such charges as might remain to be considered, but not those which s26(1)(b) of the Act required to have been discharged.

Lovell Partnerships Ltd and another v Merton Priory Homes

Contract Services. The Technology and Construction Court considered the interpretation of a contract between the parties, under which the claimant companies provided services to the defendant. The issue arose as to whether the claimants would be entitled to further remuneration if they went into liquidation. The court held that the claimants would be entitled to a declaration that the contract referred to any further payment to which it would or might otherwise be entitled pursuant to the contractual provisions relating to payment.

Rabiu and others v Marlbray Ltd

Sale of land Contract. The proceedings concerned the alleged purchase by the claimants of shares in rooms in a hotel block. The six claimants sought declarations that there had been no contract between them and the defendant company or, alternatively, alternatively recision of any contract, for the purchase of the leases, and for the refund of deposits paid by them to the defendant. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, valid contracts had existed between the defendant and four of the six claimants. The second and third defendants' contracts would not be considered valid, as they had never become parties to the proposed contracts.

Grimason v Cates

Landlord and tenant Recovery of possession. The appellant appealed against a judge's decisions not to set aside the possession order against her, and striking out her claims that the forfeiture order had been obtained wrongfully and seeking damages for unjust enrichment or restitution. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that there had been no grounds for concluding that the judge's conclusions on the possession order had not been supported by the evidence or had been unreasonable. It further held that the judge had not erred in failing to set aside the possession order.

Optima Community Association v Ker

Landlord and Tenant Tenancy agreement. The issue on appeal was whether 700, paid by the defendant as rent, although reserved as rent as part of the claimant's Flexibuy scheme, was in fact intended to be a composite payment with a substantial deposit element. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that there was nothing in the option to buy agreement which gave the tenant a proprietary claim to the deposit incentive.

Elvanite Full Circle Ltd v AMEC Earth & Environmental (UK) Ltd

Building contract Breach. The Technology and Construction Court considered a dispute regarding a planning application for waste recycling on a site. The claimant company contended that, as a result of the defendant company's negligence, it was unable to sell the site for the amount which it had sought. The defendant counterclaimed. The court held that, among other things, owing to the conditions of the contract between the parties, the claimant would be time-barred from bringing the claim. The counterclaim would be allowed in part.