Jonathan Manning

Examples of recent work: 1) Manchester CC v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45; [2010] 3 WLR 1441: junior counsel for the respondent local authority in the Supreme Court, before nine Justices (and appeared below) on what is the leading case on the availability of defences to possession claims under Arts 6 and 8, Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1. This was a claim for possession of a demoted tenancy. Issues included whether the demoted tenancy scheme was compatible with Arts 6 and 8, in the light of the recent House of Lords, Court of Appeal, and European Court authorities, whether the county court judge had jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the decision to take proceedings or needed to adjourn for judicial review and whether, if he did have jurisdiction, it should be a full merits review, or a traditional JR-type review, whether on a Wednesbury or proportionality basis. 2) Birmingham CC v Frisby [2011] UKSC 8; [2011] WLR (D) 64: junior counsel for the respondent local authority in the Supreme Court before seven Justices. Appeared without a leader in the Court of Appeal (reported as Salford CC v Mullen) [2010] EWCA Civ 336; [2011] 1 All ER 119; [2010]. The case followed on from Pinnock and concerned the circumstances in which Human Rights Act 1998 defences (Arts 6 and 8) could be run in the county court by way of defence to a claim for possession of an introductory tenancy. 3) Nzamy v Brent LBC [2011] EWCA Civ forthcoming (ex tempore judgment given on January 26, 2011): successfully led for the homeless appellant in a case in which he had asked for a move from temporary accommodation provided for him as a homeless person under Pt 7, Housing Act 1996, but refused the move that was offered because he preferred to stay where he was, as circumstances at the current accommodation had improved and the alternative accommodation was inferior. The authority decided to discharge their duty to him as he had refused a suitable offer of accommodation and evict him from his current accommodation. Issues involved whether or not the appellant could waive performance of the homelessness duty, and whether the authority could lawfully have a secret policy that if a person asked for a move, they would be obliged to accept it or lose their current accommodation. 4) Honeysuckle Properties v Fletcher [2010] EWCA Civ 1224; [2011] L and TR 10: successfully appeared for appellant landlord in this leapfrog appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of a District Judge that the landlord had not protected the respondent’s tenancy deposit in accordance with the tenancy deposit scheme provisions of the Housing Act 2004, ss213-214. This proceeded as a test case with the appeal of Tiensia v Universal Estates; they were the first cases to reach the Court of Appeal concerning tenancy deposit schemes. 5) Hanton-Rhouilla v Westminster CC [2010] EWCA Civ 1334: led in the Court of Appeal for the homeless appellant in an appeal against the local authority’s decision to decline any duty to the appellant as a homeless person because, during the course of their statutory enquiries, they persuaded her to move from interim accommodation under Pt 7, Housing Act 1996, and into private sector accommodation. This appeal raised a challenge to the legality of gatekeeping practices whereby local authorities attempt to divert potential Pt 7 applicants into other forms of housing. Funding is currently being sought for a further appeal.

Bar Finals: 1st class, 2nd in year Scarman Scholarship Inner Temple Examination Scholarship Duke of Edinburgh Entrance Award BA Law (Cantab): 2.1 class Pembroke College, Cambridge (1991: MA (Cantab)) 8 O levels – 1982; 4 A levels