The Landmark Listen Landmark Chambers

The Brook House Inquiry was a public inquiry instigated following revelations by Panorama of abuse potentially amounting to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. Alex Goodman KC and Stephanie Harrison KC have between them been involved in most of the leading cases on immigration detention over the past twenty years. They discuss the Brook House Inquiry and the history of the detention of immigrants in the UK. Essential listening for anyone interested in human rights or immigration. 

Justin Bates, Harriet Wakeman, and Barney McCay discuss the case of R (Imam) v Croydon LBC which is being heard at appeal in the Supreme Court on 4 and 5 May in this ten-minute video.
 
The Landmark barristers are acting pro bono for Crisis (instructed by Giles Peaker at Anthony Gold Solicitors) in the appeal. Crisis, the UK national charity for homelessness, is acting as intervenor. The appeal concerns the nature of the duty owed by local housing authorities to homeless people under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996, (i.e. the provision of “suitable” housing) and how to enforce a breach of the duty.

The appeal will have significant ramifications for those living in temporary accommodation, many of whom are already negatively impacted by being housed there. Crisis has been granted permission to intervene in order to assist the Supreme Court in understanding the potential impact of its decision in this case on those living in temporary accommodation, and to provide wider context to the appeal.

Alex Goodman KC discusses campaigning and the law with people who have shaped our society and shaped our law.

In this first episode, he talks to Harriet Wistrich, Founding Director of the Centre for Women’s Justice, about her 25 years of work campaigning for women’s rights and for reform of the Met Police. They discuss campaigning through a look at the Black Cab rapist litigation, the law relating to women who kill their partners, immigration detention and others. 

The series is produced by Landmark Chambers’ Public Interest Law Group.

Landmark barristers review the key factors in R (Day) v Shropshire Council in which judgment will be handed down on Wednesday 1 March 2023.

The case is a challenge to the grant of planning permission on land that was part of a recreation ground and raises the question: 

When a local authority disposes of land which is subject to a statutory trust for public recreational purposes and fails to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, does that trust continue or end; and, in either case, what are the legal implications for the authority and the disponee?

Alex Goodman and Kimberley Ziya acted for the Claimant (the Appellant in the Supreme Court).

Landmark barristers review the key factors in the upcoming Jepsen & Ors v Rakusen Supreme Court case.

The judgment of this case will be handed down on Wednesday 1 March 2023.

Can a Rent Repayment Order only be made against an immediate landlord or can a superior landlord also be liable?

Tom Morris appeared for the respondent landlord in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Upper Tribunal and First-tier Tribunal.

Justin Bates and Charles Bishop made written submissions on behalf of Safer Renting, which intervened in both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

This is a critically important test case which will have significant effects on the private rented sector.  It turns on whether a rent repayment order under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 can be made against the superior landlord of an occupier of housing, or only the occupier’s immediate landlord. The effect of the Court of Appeal’s decision was that landlords can rely on ‘rent-to-rent’ companies to shield themselves from rent repayment orders being made against them.

Landmark barristers sum up the key issues in the upcoming case of Aviva v Williams which was heard by the Supreme Court in December 2022. Since this video was recorded the Supreme Court has announced that judgment will be handed down on 8 February 2023. 

What is the scope of the tribunal’s jurisdiction when it comes to apportioning residential service charges? This case has a focus on Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in particular, 27A6 which states:
(6)  An agreement by the tenant of a dwelling (other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement) is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination—
(a)  in a particular manner, or
(b)  on particular evidence,
of any question which may be the subject of an application under subsection (1) or (3).

Simon Allison and Brooke Lyne represent the Respondents, with Justin Bates and Rupert Cohen representing the intervener.