Philippa has an extensive practice in residential landlord and tenant and acts on behalf of landlords (private and social) and tenants.
Philippa undertakes possession hearings (including multiple day trials) in relation to all grounds for possession. Trials in which she has been involved include subletting, anti-social behaviour, obtaining a tenancy by deception, abandonment, and acts of waste.
Philippa’s current role as an Equality and Diversity Officer in Chambers, together with her previous work at the AIRE Centre, demonstrates her interest in and experience of cases involving the Equality Act 2010. She has been instructed in a number of cases relating to succession, including those defended on the basis of breaches of the Equality Act.
Additionally, Philippa also has experience of commercial landlord and tenant law including of breaches of covenant and forfeiture.
Related cases of Interest
Representing a housing association in a lengthy possession trial. In addition to rent arrears, possession was sought on the basis of anti-social behaviour (violent and threatening behaviour which caused neighbours to be re-housed), and committing an indictable offence in the locality.
Representing a local authority in a vigorously contested claim for possession on the ground of under-occupation lasting several days.
Representing a housing association in a possession trial against a tenant represented by the Official Solicitor on the basis of anti-social behaviour (prolonged and disturbing noise nuisance), defended on the basis of unlawful discrimination.
Mediation on behalf of a local authority in respect of a possession claim on the ground of abandonment and acts of waste. There was a counterclaim for disrepair.
Representing the tenant in a possession claim in which the housing trust alleged she did not fulfil the relevant succession criteria, and was not entitled to succeed under the terms of her tenancy agreement. The claim was defended on public law grounds.
Numerous cases involving section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 and issues in relation to tenancy deposits.
Private prosecutions in the Magistrates’ Court relating to s.82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Philippa has a busy appeals’ practice. Her appeals include:
Representing the respondent landlord in an appeal brought by the tenant against a possession order made on ground 8 of schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988. The basis of the appeal was that the district judge had erred in making an order for possession rather than giving directions, when a counterclaim for disrepair was handed up at the hearing. The appeal was dismissed.
Representing the appellant landlord in relation to an appeal against the order of a district judge who made a declaration that the landlord was in breach of the Equality Act 2010 following the landlord’s failure to serve a defence to the counterclaim. The order was overturned on appeal.
Representing the appellant landlord in relation to the refusal of a deputy district judge to make an order for possession on the basis of anti-social behaviour, and committing an indictable offence in the locality, and rent arrears on discretionary grounds. The matter settled following the grant of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Representing the appellant landlord in an appeal against a district judge’s dismissal of an undefended application to expedite a possession claim for a summary hearing under its case management powers. The order was overturned on appeal and an order for possession was made.
Assisting the tenant in successfully appealing an order for possession made at the first hearing on the basis that the district judge had made an error of law by incorrectly applying CPR 24.2 instead of CPR 55.8. The order was overturned on appeal and case management directions were given.
Assisting the tenant in successfully appealing an order for possession made at the first hearing on the basis that the district judge had erred in finding that a s.21 notice had been properly served by first class post in the absence of s. 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 having been incorporated into the tenancy agreement by express provision. The order was overturned on appeal and the case was sent back to the county court.