Notable Cases

Inquiries

UK Covid-19 Inquiry (2023 – Ongoing)

Arfan is Senior Solictor acting on the Covid Inquiry.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry (2017 – 2023)

Arfan was the Managing Solicitor for the team at Oliver Fisher Solicitors, one of the twenty firms acting for Core Participants in the Grenfell Inquiry. He left Oliver Fisher Solicitors in October 2023 after finalising submissons for his clients.

Homelessness Reviews (s204)

Court of Appeal

Alibkhiet v. London Borough of Brent and Adam v City of Westminster [2018] EWCA Civ 2742

Arfan represented Ms Adam in the Court of Appeal in relation to out of borough placements. A helpful summary is found here.

County Court

Yassin v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (Unreported) (2018)

This case concerned the Local Authorities duty in considering educational needs of the household when placing out of borough or referring to another Local Authority.

This case confirms the need to make, and evidence, proper enquiries when moving school-age children as in R (on the application of E) v Islington LBC, (as required under s.11(2) Children Act 2004) however it limits the enquires to very specific facts based on the educational needs of the children.

A longer summary is found here.

DR -v- Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (2017)

Arfan stepped into a late s204 appeal put in by the client with no grounds. After amended grounds and an application for permission for late appeal the matter was agreed by consent before the first hearing.

Judicial Reviews

Housing Act – Part 6

The Queen (on the application of KD)  -v- LB. Ealing (2017)  

Arfan was lead Solicitor  on a complex Judicial Review case that involved a rejection for an application for the Housing Register under part 6 of the Housing Act for a EU citizen and permanent right to reside. Following over 2 years of pre-litigation and multiple decisions being made by the Authority. The matter was resolved on consent prior to a hearing in favour of the client.

The Queen (on the application of Hindis Abdulrahman) -v- LB Hillingdon 2016. 

Arfan was on the team for the leading case into what constitutes change of circumstances for Homelessness Applications.

Homelessness (Priority Need)

The Queen (on the application of JH)  -v- LB. Hillingdon March 2015 and The Queen (on the application of LS)  -v- LB. Hillingdon September 2015 

This focused on single males with mental health problems and the priority need test. Arfan was successful in Out of Hours Judicial Reviews in relation to accommodation pending review. Both cases eventually ended with positive decisions as to priority need for both clients.

Homelessness (Suitability of Interim Accommodation)

The Queen (on the application of LC)  -v- LB. Ealing 2014  

This was a Judicial Review of discharge of interim duty and focused on refusal of interim accommodation due to care needs. Following a hearing, it was found that carer responsibilities have to be considered when providing interim-accommodation under Part 7.

Homelessness (Accommodation Pending Review) s189B

R (on the application of Laryea) v London Borough of Ealing (2019) QBD (Admin) 29/08/2019 [Summary by Nearly Legal](LAG Dec 2019 page 29) [2019]EWHC 3598

While Mr L and not taken full advantage of the opportunities set out in his personalised housing plan, that had to be considered against his medical situation, including physical and mental disabilities.

Ealing’s letter had errors and did not identify the likely consequences of a decision, or consider whether those consequences should bear on the decision. R v Camden LBC (1997) 5 WLUK 486.

The medical evidence was that Mr L’s epilepsy was worse when he was homeless, and Ealing’s letter did not engage with that, or with Mr L’s personal circumstances and the consequences to him of being homeless.

Relief (Injunction) granted

Housing Allocation – London Borough of Brent

Following s204 appeals and pre-action letter for Judicial Review, successful in changing LB Brent Allocation Policy to include priority for Foster Carer’s when they no longer intend to take on any further children but Foster children remain in their care.

Possession

Section 21

Court of Appeal

Trecarrell House Limited -v- Rouncefield [2020] EWCA Civ 760

The case concerns service of a GSR and s21 notices. In summary, the following is decided by the Court of Appeal:

  • As long as the GSR is provided to the tenant prior to service of the section 21, the notice will be valid;
  • Regulation 2(2) of the 2015 Regulations does not have the effect of excluding regulation 36(6)(b) of the 1998 Regulations and new tenants do need to be served with a GSR;
  • Regulation 2(2) of the 2015 Regulations removes the 28 day time limit for giving a GSR to an existing tenant.

Permisson to Appeal was sought and the Supreme Court declined to hear the matter..

More detailed commentary is here by Oliver Fisher and Nearly Legal.

The current position of s21 and Possession after the case.

County Court

KAUR v GRIFFITH (25th July 2019 – County Court at Bromley) (Unreported)

A first instance decision, Coffey DJ accepted that the lateness of the 2018 Gas Safety Check and subsequent late Gas Safety Certificate invalidated the section 21 notice because the check had not been carried out within 12 months of the previous check, in line with Regulation 36(3) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.

A more detailed note of the case and background is available here (or pdf)