Possession Claim Withdrawn Following Service of Equality Act Defence and Counterclaim
In September this year, we were approached by X who sought our advice after her landlord issued possession proceedings against her in her local County Court.
In September this year, we were approached by X who sought our advice after her landlord issued possession proceedings against her in her local County Court.
The client is a mother of two children and requires the use of a wheelchair. She resides in temporary accommodation provided in pursuant of a council’s main housing duty. The property is located out of borough.
We represented a young adult of good character who had been charged with assaulting an emergency worker. It was the Crown’s case that in an attempt to get away from the police, our client deliberately struck a police officer causing them to fall and hit their head on the ground.
We settled this case only days before trial for our very vulnerable client, obtaining a higher level of damages than counsel expected.
CJ moved into a private-rented sector property as a tenant in 1991 and paid a deposit. Ownership of the property changed and her subsequent landlord requested a further deposit which CJ paid.
Max Konarek, assisted by Alison Barar, instructed Laura Briggs KC and Olivia Magennis of 1GC. The legal team represented our client, an Intervener in Care Proceedings where very serious historic sexual and physical abuse allegations had been made.
Our client, a man of previous good character and a military veteran, was issued with a Conditional Discharge for six months for possession of a number of weapons in a private place.
The case against our client under S4 of the Public Order Act has been dismissed, after an unsuccessful application for an adjournment by the Prosecution.
Our client instructed us to request a suitability review of her new temporary accommodation. Her family has very complex needs, as two of her three children have autism and one has PICA syndrome like traits, meaning that he would try to eat both food and non-edible items.
GT Stewart represented a client who was arrested and interviewed by West Yorkshire Police in relation to an allegation of theft from a motor vehicle (contrary to Section 1 of the Theft Act of 1968).