David has appeared in the High Court, Court of Appeal, County Court, Crown Court and Magistrate's Court on a range of different types of action including homelessness appeals, anti-social behaviour order applications (having appeared for Brighton and Hove City Council on some of the first interim anti-social behaviour order applications after the relevant legislation came into force), possession trials, injunction applications, various types of housing benefit fraud prosecutions, unlawful eviction prosecutions and licensing appeals.
Recent reported cases in respect of homelessness appeals include:
Falis Ibrahim v Wandsorth LBC  (CA) Judgment is awaited in this important case in which David acted for Wandsworth LBC on an appeal relating to Regulation 8 of the Housing Review Procedures Regulations 1999. The Court of Appeal comprising Mummery L.J., Etherton L.J. and Sir Stephen Sedley have reserved judgment in a case which should resolve the seemingly inconsistent approach to Regulation 8(2) adopted by Lewison L.J. and Rix L.J. in the case of Mitu v Camden LBC.
Chaoui El Goure v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea  EWCA Civ 670 C.A. David appeared successfully for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea before the Court of Appeal. In this important case dealing with the modern approach to statutory interpretation Mummery L.J. (who gave the lead judgment) confirmed that it was necessary to give a purposive rather than a literal interpretation to Regulation 6 of the Housing Review Procedures Regulations 1999.
Siveter v Wandsworth LBC  (CA) H.L.R. 26 David acted for Wandsworth LBC in this case relating to a local authority's duties and liabilities in relation to treating pests found to be present in its housing stock.
Dragic v Wandsworth  High Court 21/01/2011 (on appeal from HHJ Ellis in Croydon County Court who had struck out a s.204 appeal notice as out of time). David successfully obtained judgment from Supperstone J. dismissing the appeal. Supperstone J. held that service on the Appellant's agent is good service on the Appellant himself and starts the 21 day time limit for an appeal under s.204 running (despite the inclusion of the word "his" in front of "notification" in s.204(2)).
Bubb v Wandsworth  EWCA Civ 1285 C.A. David appeared successfully for Wandsworth and was led by Andrew Arden in the Court of Appeal. In a case of significance for all housing practitioners, Lord Neuberger M.R. (giving the leading judgment) held that matters of fact under the Housing Act 1996, such as the delivery of an offer letter in discharge of a duty to provide housing, are for the housing authority and are not precedent or hard edged facts upon which the county court has jurisdiction to decide. This very much follows on from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Adel William v Wandsworth  H.L.R (and in particular the judgment of Lord Justice Chadwick) in which David also appeared for Wandsworth and in which it was held that matters of fact are for the local housing authority and can only be challenged on the usual Wednesbury grounds, the comments of Lord Brightman in Puhlhofer v Hillingdon being equally applicable to decisions of an authority under the Housing Act 1996.
Watson v the London Borough of Wandsworth  B5/2009/2427 12/10/10 (Mummery, Etherton and Sullivan LJJ). Successful homelessness appeal in which it was held that the Recorder at first instance had wrongfully found the Council's decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 that property was suitable under s.193 to be perverse on grounds of Ms Watson's fear of violence in the area of the offer and in so doing had wrongly assumed the Council's fact finding role. It was also held (Sullivan LJ, Mummery and Etherton LJJ agreeing) that the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Kay v The UK (Application no. 37341/06) handed down on 21 September 2010 had no bearing on an appeal to the County Court under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996 against a decision of a local authority under s. 202.
Wandsworth v Allison  EWCA Civ 354 (Wall, Arden Wilson L.J.J). Successful homelessness appeal in which it was held that the local authority was entitled to obtain advice from Dr Keen of NowMedical to understand the medical issues and evaluate for itself the evidence before it, in particular how Mr Allison's medical difficulties would be likely to affect him. It would not have been appropriate or necessary for Dr Keen to examine Mr Allison. The local authority's review officer was entitled to give weight to his conclusions. The weight which the review officer gave to the medical evidence was a matter for her. Shala v Birmingham City Council  EWCA Civ 624 distinguished.
Adel William v Wandsworth London Borough Council  EWCA Civ 535 C.A (Chadwick L.J.; Sedley L.J.; Arden L.J.) Successful Homelessness Appeal in which it was held that: A local housing authority had been entitled to find that an applicant had made himself intentionally homeless by making a deliberate decision not to use the monies available to him from a remortgage to pay the mortgage instalments, which had led to the property being repossessed. A separate applicant had been intentionally homeless by allowing the joint owner to sell the property and collect the full net proceeds of sale.
Kruja v Enfield  EWCA Civ 1769 C.A. (Pill L.J., Laws L.J., Sir Martin Nourse) Successful Homelessness Appeal in which it was held that: The trial judge had been wrong to usurp a fact finding role instead of adopting a statutory judicial review of the local housing authority's decision that the respondent had not established a priority need, and had given no consideration to the test of vulnerability.
Lomotey v Enfield  EWCA Civ 627 C.A. (Longmore L.J., Peter Gibson L.J.) Successful homelessness appeal in which it was held that: where a claimant had not challenged certain propositions put to her by a local authority at an interview, it was not incumbent upon a review panel to afford her an oral hearing to rebut those propositions.
G.M v London Borough of Wandsworth  EWHC 805 (Admin) Application for judicial review of failure to accept a fresh homelessness application successfully resisted. Sullivan J held that: the medical evidence relied upon in that case as fresh information did not contain any fresh information, it was simply the original application dressed up somewhat differently. Scott Baker LJ refused a renewed application for permission to appeal against this decision on 17/06/04 ( EWCA Civ 856).
David has successfully resisted applications for permission to appeal against homelessness review decisions on numerous occasions, including in Samiya Abdi v London Borough of Wandsworth  EWCA Civ 1099 (13 July 2006) C.A. (L.J. Hooper & Hughes).