Results: 6306

• Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Comrs

  12 Dec 2008 [2008] EWHC 2893 (Ch); [2009] STC 254, Ch D (Henderson J)

  23 Feb 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 103; [2010] STC 1251; [2010] WLR (D) 58, CA

  23 May 2012 [2012] UKSC 19; [2012] 2 AC 337; [2012] 2 WLR 1149; [2012] Bus LR 1033; [2012] 3 All ER 909; [2012] STC 1362; [2012] WLR (D) 161; Case details, SC(E)

  12 Dec 2013 (Case C-362/12); EU:C:2013:834; [2014] AC 1161; [2014] 3 WLR 743; [2014] All ER (EC) 375; [2014] STC 638; [2014] 2 CMLR 33; [2013] WLR (D) 488, ECJ

  23 Jul 2021 [2021] UKSC 31; [2021] 1 WLR 4354; [2022] 1 All ER 751; [2021] STC 1597; [2021] WLR(D) 446, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 4 positive; 2 neutral; 1 negative; most recently considered: 2020. Subsequent citations: 102.
  REVENUE — Corporation tax — Advance corporation tax

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY — Breach of Community law — Domestic remedy

  RESTITUTION — Quasi-contract — Moneys had and received

  EUROPEAN UNION — Breach of European Union law — Domestic remedy

  REVENUE — Taxpayers paying advance corporation tax in breach of European Union law — Proper approach to calculating amount payable to taxpayers in restitution

  EUROPEAN UNION — Judicial protection — Principle of effectiveness
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  REVENUE — Corporation tax — Advance corporation tax — United Kingdom resident companies entitled to deduct advance corporation tax paid on nationally-sourced dividends when paying dividends to UK shareholders — No entitlement to deduct foreign tax paid on foreign-sourced dividends — Court of Justice of European Communities holding rule withholding tax credit from non-resident shareholders precluded by EC law — Whether further reference to Court of Justice required — Differential treatment of foreign-sourced and nationally-sourced dividends under United Kingdom law — Whether differential treatment precluded by European Community law — EC Treaty, arts 43EC, 56EC, 57EC

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY — Breach of Community law — Domestic remedy — Claims for recovery of taxes unduly levied — Requirement that domestic law of member state provide effective remedy for recovery of taxes levied contrary to Community law — English law providing resitutionary remedy of recovery of unlawfully exacted taxes — Claimant relying on alternative remedy of recovery of sums paid under mistake of law — Whether Community law requirement extending to alternative remedy so as to preclude statutory curtailment of limitation period if contrary to Community law principles — Finance Act 2004, s 320 — Finance Act 2007, s 107

  RESTITUTION — Quasi-contract — Moneys had and received — Statute levying tax contrary to EU law — Payments of moneys to revenue in accordance with taxing statute — Payments made without prior formal demand by revenue — Taxpayers’ right to recover unlawfully exacted taxes — Whether applicable in absence of demand by revenue — Whether within statutory provision extending limitation period for actions for relief from consequences of mistake — Whether applicable where recovery possible under statutory right for repayment of tax paid by error or mistake — Taxes Management Act 1970 (as amended by Finance Act 1994, s 196, Sch 19, para 8(2)), s 33(1)(2A) — Limitation Act 1980, s 32(1)(c)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Breach of European Union law — Domestic remedy — Claims for recovery of taxes unduly levied — Requirement that domestic law of member state provide effective remedy for recovery of taxes levied contrary to European Union law — English common law restitutionary remedy enabling recovery of unlawfully exacted taxes — Claimants relying on alternative remedy of recovery of sums paid under mistake of law — National statutory provisions curtailing limitation period for applicable remedies without notice and retroactively — Whether European Union principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations precluding statutory curtailment of limitation period for alternative remedy — Limitation Act 1980, s 32(1)(c) — Finance Act 2004, s 320

  REVENUE — Corporation tax — Advance corporation tax — Different tax treatment of nationally-sourced and foreign-sourced dividends received by UK-resident companies contrary to EU law — Taxpayers entitled to repayment of tax unlawfully levied and tax credits — Revenue making concession that taxpayers entitled to compound interest on restitutionary award — Whether revenue barred from withdrawing concession — Whether and on what basis taxpayers entitled to interest for tax paid prematurely — Whether taxpayers entitled to carry forward unused double taxation relief — Whether revenue enriched by receipt of unlawful tax — Whether amount of repayment reduced if UK companies having foreign parent — Whether EU standstill provision applying after UK altered foreign tax rules — When and to what extent unlawfully charged tax regarded as surrendered — Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, ss 231, 240 — FEU Treaty, arts 63, 64

  REVENUE — Taxpayers paying advance corporation tax in breach of European Union law — Proper approach to calculating amount payable to taxpayers in restitution

  REVENUE — Corporation tax — Advance corporation tax — Taxpayers’ claims for restitution of tax levied in breach of EU law — Revenue conceding taxpayers entitled to restitution of unlawfully levied tax with compound interest — Whether revenue barred from withdrawing concession to prejudice of taxpayers — Whether and on what basis taxpayers entitled to interest for tax paid prematurely — Whether taxpayers entitled to restitution in respect of unused double taxation relief credits — Whether revenue enriched by receipt of unlawful tax when paying out shareholder credits — Whether EU standstill provision applying after UK altering foreign tax rules — Appropriate method for calculating award where parent company surrendering surplus tax to subsidiary — Senior Courts Act 1981 (c 54), s 35A — Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c 1), ss 231, 240 — Access to Justice Act 1999 (c 22), s 54(4) — Finance Act 2019 (c 1), s 85 — FEU Treaty, arts 63, 64

  EUROPEAN UNION — Judicial protection — Principle of effectiveness — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations — Restitution of sums paid but not due — Remedies — National legislation — Curtailment of the limitation period for the applicable remedies without notice and retroactively

  19 Case(s) considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  3 Statutes considered
• Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure (Football Association Premier League Ltd v AV Station plc, Football Association Premier League Ltd v Madden)

  24 Jun 2008 [2008] EWHC 1411 (Ch); [2008] FSR 32, Ch D (Kitchin J )

  13 Nov 2008 [2008] EWHC 2897 (Ch); [2009] 1 WLR 1603, Ch D (Kitchin J)

  04 Oct 2011 (Joined cases C-403/08 and C-429/08); EU:C:2011:631; [2012] Bus LR 1321; [2012] All ER (EC) 629; [2011] WLR (D) 286, ECJ

  03 Feb 2012 (No 2) [2012] EWHC 108 (Ch); [2012] FSR 366, Ch D (Kitchin J)

  20 Dec 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 1708; [2013] Bus LR 866; [2012] WLR (D) 392, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 4 neutral. Subsequent citations: 56.
  PRACTICE — Parties — Joinder

  EUROPEAN UNION — Free competition — Restriction or distortion of competition
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Parties — Joinder — Court referring questions to Court of Justice of the European Communities — Non-parties applying to be joined as claimants to national court proceedings in order to take part in preliminary reference procedure — Whether court having jurisdiction to join parties as claimants to national court proceedings for that purpose — Whether discretion to be exercised — CPR r 19.2(2)(a)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Free competition — Restriction or distortion of competition — Broadcasting — Claimant operating system of licences for broadcast of football matches — Each licensee granted exclusive right to broadcast matches in single member state — Each subscriber requiring decoder card to decrypt licensee’s satellite signal — Licensees prohibited under licence agreement from supplying decoder cards to persons outside member state for which licence granted — Businesses in United Kingdom using decoder cards obtained by subterfuge from foreign licensee — Whether cards “illicit device” — Whether national legislation prohibiting import, sale or use of foreign decoder cards contrary to freedom to provide services — Whether objective of protecting intellectual property rights justifying prohibition — Whether contractual prohibition on supplying decoder cards contrary to EU competition law — Whether transient fragments of protected works on television screen “acts of reproduction” — Whether acts exempt — Whether transmission of works “communication to the public” for which authorisation required — Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss 297, 298 — FEU Treaty, arts 56FEU, 101FEU — Council Directive 98/84/EC, arts 2, 3 — Council Directive 2001/29/EC, arts 2, 3, 5

  9 Case(s) considered
• DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs

  08 May 2007 [2007] 5 WLUK 152, Special Comrs (Charles Hellier)

  17 Oct 2008 [2008] EWHC 2429 (Ch); [2009] STC 77, Ch D (Norris J)

  10 Nov 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 1165; [2010] STC 80, CA (Rix, Moses and Rimer LJJ)

  15 Dec 2010 [2010] UKSC 58; [2011] 1 WLR 44; [2011] 1 All ER 537; [2011] STC 326; [2010] WLR (D) 333; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive. Subsequent citations: 18.
  REVENUE — Corporation tax — Deemed loan transactions

  STATUTE — Construction — Deeming provision
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  REVENUE — Corporation tax — Deemed loan transactions — Correct application of deeming provisions — “Repo” transactions providing for securities to be bought and sold back for specified price after pre-determined period — Tax statute deeming repo transactions to be short-term secured loans — Statute requiring interest payments to be brought into account as credits and debits from deemed loan relationship — Taxpayer company buying gilts under repo transaction — Taxpayer receiving six-monthly interest coupon during 18-day period of ownership — Taxpayer claiming deeming provision allowing credit for apportioned interest only but debit for full interest payment — Whether deeming provision to be restricted to extent necessary to reflect statutory purpose — Whether statutory purpose requiring symmetrical debits and credits in respect of deemed loan relationship — Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (as amended by Finance Act 1994, s 122, Finance Act 1995, s 80(1), Finance Act 1996, s 205, Sch 41, Pt V(21) and Finance Act 1997, s 113, Sch 18, Pt VI(10)), ss 730A(2), 737A — Finance Act 1996 (as amended by Finance Act 1997, s 113, Sch 18, Pt VI(10)), ss 84(1), 97(2)(4)

  STATUTE — Construction — Deeming provision — Correct application — Artificial assumption required by deeming provision not to be taken further than warranted by statutory purpose

  4 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered
• Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3) (Secretary of State for the Home Department v AM, Secretary of State for the Home Department v AN, Secretary of State for the Home Department v AE)

  10 Mar 2008 (No 2) [2008] EWHC 453 (Admin); [2008] ACD 53, QBD (Stanley Burnton J)

  09 Apr 2008 (No 3) [2008] EWHC 689 (Admin); [2008] 4 All ER 340; The Times, 25 April 2008, QBD (Stanley Burnton J)

  17 Oct 2008 [2008] EWCA Civ 1148; [2010] 2 AC 269; [2009] 2 WLR 423; [2009] 2 All ER 602; The Times, 29 October 2008, CA

  10 Jun 2009 [2009] UKHL 28; [2010] 2 AC 269; [2009] 3 WLR 74; [2009] 3 All ER 643; 26 BHRC 738; The Times, 11 June 2009; [2009] WLR (D) 180, HL(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 10 positive; 4 neutral; 5 negative; most recently considered: 2021. Subsequent citations: 147.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to fair trial — Suspected international terrorist
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to fair trial — Suspected international terrorist — Home Secretary issuing non-derogating control orders — Court hearing to consider whether Home Secretary's decision flawed — Some or all of material not disclosed to controlee — Special advocates appointed to represent controlee with sight of closed material not disclosed to controlee — Whether hearing necessarily unfair absent disclosure to controlee of irreducible minimum of information — Whether procedure in breach of controlee's Convention right to fair trial — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 6 — Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, s 3(10), Sch, para 4 — CPR, Pt 76

  8 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• Bridge Trustees Ltd v Yates (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions intervening) (Bridge Trustees Ltd v Houldsworth (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions intervening))

  (appn all) [2010] ICR 1368, SC(E)

  01 May 2008 [2008] EWHC 964 (Ch); [2008] Pen LR 261, Ch D (Sarah Asplin QC)

  04 Mar 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 179; [2010] ICR 921; [2010] WLR (D) 65, CA (Mummery, Wilson, Rimer LJJ)

  27 Jul 2011 [2011] UKSC 42; [2011] 1 WLR 1912; [2011] ICR 1069; [2012] 1 All ER 659; [2011] WLR (D) 267; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony JJSC, Lord Collins of Mapesbury)

  Subsequent citations: 3.
  TRUSTS — Pension scheme — Underprovision
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  TRUSTS — Pension scheme — Underprovision — Salary related scheme restructured to provide benefits related to members’ contributions and matching credits from employer — Whether benefits attributable to employer's credits “derived from” member's voluntary contributions — Whether money purchase benefits — Whether features of scheme precluding benefits from being money purchase benefits — Pension Schemes Act 1993, s 181(1) — Pensions Act 1995, s 73 — Occupational Pension Schemes (Winding up) Regulations 1996, reg 13

  4 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• R (E) v Governing Body of JFS (United Synagogue intervening) (R (E) v Schools Adjudicator (British Humanist Association intervening))

  03 Jul 2008 [2008] EWHC 1535 (Admin); [2008] EWHC 1536 (Admin); [2008] ELR 445, QBD (Munby J)

  25 Jun 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 626; [2009] PTSR 1442; [2009] 4 All ER 375; [2009] WLR (D) 209, CA (Sedley, Smith, Rimer LJJ)

  16 Dec 2009 [2009] UKSC 15; [2010] 2 AC 728; [2010] 2 WLR 153; [2010] PTSR 147; [2010] 1 All ER 319; [2009] WLR (D) 366; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 3 positive; 1 neutral; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 94.
  DISCRIMINATION — Race — Less favourable treatment

  EDUCATION — School — Admissions
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  DISCRIMINATION — Race — Less favourable treatment — Oversubscribed Jewish school giving priority to children recognised as Jewish by birth or Orthodox conversion irrespective of religious practice — School refusing to admit child of mother converted through non-Orthodox teaching — Whether unlawful discrimination on racial grounds — Race Relations Act 1976, s 1(1)(a), (1A) (as inserted by Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, reg 3)

  EDUCATION — School — Admissions — Faith school's oversubscription policy — Priority for children designated as Jewish by birth or Orthodox conversion irrespective of religious practice — School refusing to admit child of mother converted through non-Orthodox teaching — Whether unlawful discrimination on racial grounds — Race Relations Act 1976, s 1(1)(a), (1A) (as inserted by Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, reg 3)

  DISCRIMINATION — Race — Less favourable treatment — Oversubscribed Jewish school giving priority to children recognised as Jewish by birth or Orthodox conversion irrespective of religious practice — School refusing to admit child of mother converted through non-Orthodox teaching — Whether unlawful discrimination on racial grounds — Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended by Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, regs 3, 4 and Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2008, reg 2), ss 1(1)(a)(1A), 3

  EDUCATION — School — Admissions — Faith school's oversubscription policy — Priority for children designated as Jewish by birth or Orthodox conversion irrespective of religious practice — School refusing to admit child of mother converted through non-Orthodox teaching — Whether unlawful discrimination on racial grounds — Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended by Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, regs 3, 4 and Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2008, reg 2), ss 1(1)(a)(1A), 3

  9 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered
• R (WL (Congo)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (R (WL (Congo)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2), R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JUSTICE intervening), R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JUSTICE intervening) (No 2), R (Mighty) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JUSTICE intervening))

  04 Jul 2008 [2008] EWHC 2090 (Admin), QBD (Collins J)

  19 Feb 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 111; [2010] 1 WLR 2168; [2010] 4 All ER 489; [2010] UKHRR 366, CA (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR, Carnwath, Stanley Burnton LJJ)

  23 Mar 2011 [2011] UKSC 12; [2012] 1 AC 245; [2011] 2 WLR 671; [2011] 4 All ER 1; [2011] WLR (D) 100; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers PSC, Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Collins of Mapesbury, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Dyson JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 19 positive; 6 neutral; 5 negative; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 520.
  DAMAGES — Measure of damages — False imprisonment

  IMMIGRATION — Deportation order — Detention pending deportation

  TORT — Cause of action — False imprisonment
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  DAMAGES — Measure of damages — False imprisonment — Public law error and abuse of power in detention of claimants prior to deportation — Inevitable that claimants would have been detained even if detention powers had been lawfully exercised — Claimants suffering no damage as result of unlawful detention — Whether exemplary or vindicatory damages justified — Whether claimants entitled to more than nominal damages for false imprisonment

  IMMIGRATION — Deportation order — Detention pending deportation — Claimant foreign nationals sentenced to imprisonment — Claimants detained under Home Secretary's directions pending deportation — Home Secretary's published policy to detain convicted foreign nationals only when justified — Claimants' claim of unlawful detention on grounds Home Secretary operating unpublished blanket policy of detention of all convicted foreign nationals — Whether policy containing presumption in favour of detention unlawful — Whether operation of unpublished policy unlawful — Whether claimants' detention unlawful — Circumstances in which power to detain foreign national prisoners pending deportation exercisable — Immigration Act 1971, Sch 3, para 2 (as amended by Criminal Justice Act 1982, s 64, Sch 10, para 1, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, s 54(1)(2)(3), Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s 114(3), Sch 7, para 7 and Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004, s 34(1)(2))

  TORT — Cause of action — False imprisonment — Unlawful exercise of Home Secretary's statutory power to detain foreign national prisoners — Inevitable that prisoners could and would have been detained lawfully — Whether unlawful detention giving rise to cause of action for false imprisonment absent harm

  13 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered
• R (Noone) v Governor of Drake Hall Prison

  31 Jan 2008 [2008] EWHC 207 (Admin), QBD (Mitting J)

  17 Oct 2008 [2008] EWCA Civ 1097; [2009] 1 WLR 1321; [2009] 1 All ER 494, CA

  30 Jun 2010 [2010] UKSC 30; [2010] 1 WLR 1743; [2010] 4 All ER 463; [2010] WLR (D) 164; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 10.
  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Release on licence
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Release on licence — Computation of release dates where prisoner serving consecutive sentences of less than or more than 12 months passed under different statutory sentencing regimes — New statutory sentencing regime with transitional provisions — Calculation of earliest release date on home detention curfew and licence — Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No 8 and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2005, Sch 2, para 14

  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Release on licence — Computation of release dates where prisoner serving consecutive sentences of less than and more than 12 months — New statutory sentencing regime with transitional provisions — Calculation of earliest release date on home detention curfew and licence — Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No 8 and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2005, Sch 2, para 14

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• R (Barclay) v Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

  18 Jun 2008 [2008] EWHC 1354 (Admin); [2010] 1 AC 464; [2008] 3 WLR 867; [2008] UKHRR 1284, QBD (Wyn Williams J)

  02 Dec 2008 [2008] EWCA Civ 1319; [2010] 1 AC 464; [2009] 2 WLR 1205, CA

  01 Dec 2009 [2009] UKSC 9; [2010] 1 AC 464; [2009] 3 WLR 1270; [2010] 2 All ER 267; [2009] WLR (D) 349; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 20.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Jurisdiction — Channel Islands

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to fair trial — Interference with

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to free elections — Interference with
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Jurisdiction — Channel Islands — United Kingdom declaring Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms extending to Island of Sark as dependent territory — Whether Human Rights Act 1998 extending to Sark — Ministers and Privy Counsellors advising Queen to give Royal Assent to Laws proposed by legislature of Sark — Whether advisers acting as “public authority” — Human Rights Act 1998, s 6 — Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953), art 56, First Protocol, art 4

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to fair trial — Interference with — Sark Law providing for Sark judge to sit in Sark legislature — Whether judge independent and impartial tribunal — Whether Law infringing Convention right to fair trial — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 6(1)

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to free elections — Interference with — Sark Law providing for officials to sit as unelected members of Sark legislature and prohibiting aliens from standing for election to legislature — Whether impairing “free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature” — Whether infringing Convention right to free elections — Whether “people” limited to citizens — Whether law breaching right of citizen of European Union to stand as candidate at “municipal elections” — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt II, art 3 — EC Treaty, art 19(1)EC

  16 Case(s) considered

  4 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 International Agreement considered
• R (Weaver) v London and Quadrant Housing Trust (London & Quadrant Housing Trust v Weaver)

  24 Jun 2008 [2008] EWHC 1377 (Admin); [2009] 1 All ER 17; (2008) 158 NLJ 969; The Times, 8 July 2008, DC (Richards LJ, Swift J)

  18 Jun 2009 (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) [2009] EWCA Civ 587; [2010] 1 WLR 363; [2010] PTSR 1; [2009] 4 All ER 865; [2009] LGR 963; [2009] WLR (D) 202; The Times, 26 August 2009, CA (Rix LJ, Lord Collins of Mapesbury, Elias LJ)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive. Subsequent citations: 23.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Public authority — Functions of public nature
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Public authority — Functions of public nature — Registered social landlord seeking possession order on mandatory grounds against assured tenant — Whether registered social landlord “public authority” exercising “functions of a public nature” when terminating tenancy — Whether “nature of the act … private” — Whether decision of registered social landlord susceptible to judicial review — Human Rights Act 1998, s 6(3)(b)(5)

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Public authority — Functions of public nature — Registered social landlord bringing action against tenant for possession on mandatory grounds — Tenant seeking judicial review of decision to seek possession — Tenant alleging breach of her legitimate expectation that all reasonable alternatives would be pursued before claiming possession — Whether registered social landlord public authority — Whether performing functions of public nature — Whether amenable to judicial review on Convention rights or conventional public law grounds — Whether legitimate expectation made out — Housing Act 1996, Pt I — Human Rights Act 1998, s 6(3)(b)

  6 Case(s) considered

  3 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered