header-logo header-logo

16 January 2015
Issue: 7636 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Landlord & tenant

Charalambous and another v NG and another [2014] EWCA Civ 1604, [2014] All ER (D) 175 (Dec)

The tenants had paid a deposit for a property under the terms of their tenancy agreement. Subsequently, the statutory tenancy deposit scheme was introduced, but the deposit was never placed in such a scheme. The landlady purported to serve notice to quit under s 21 of the Housing Act 1988 and the tenants challenged the validity of that notice because of the failure to comply with the statutory deposit scheme. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that s 215 of the Housing Act 2004, as amended by the Localism Act 2004 and enacting Order, had not been retrospective in their operation and, since the tenants’ deposit had never been kept in an authorised scheme, the possession notice had been invalid.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll