Source: https://cornerstonebarristers.com/barrister/michael-paget/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:59:57+00:00

Document:
Michael specialises in Property (commercial and residential), Housing and Public Law, Planning and related areas including Court of Protection matters. During 2018 he has appeared in the Supreme Court twice.
Michael specialises in Chambers's core areas. He is a proven litigator with a broad civil practice.
During 2018 he has appeared in the Supreme Court twice.
He accepts instructions from solicitors firms, in-house legal departments and by direct access.
Chambers UK 2018 states; "He is diligent, concise and someone who provides well-researched, tailored and clear advice." "A really impressive advocate who is very good with clients. He is very bright and he has got tenacity."
Michael has an expertise dealing with the cost implications of all litigation steps and funding issues. He accepts instructions under various forms of CFA. He encourages full use of Part 36 Offers.
He is also exerienced in regulatory cases: HMOs under the Housing Act 2004; patients and nearest relative under the Mental Health Act 1983; how to police financial Deputies and landowners under TCPA 1990.
Setting-off Part 36 costs in an appeal against Part 36 costs in the main action.
Obtaining and quantifying costs following discontinuance of county court displacement action.
These cases can be accessed under Michael's other core practice area entries.
Contract Law in the Supreme Court: a sensible break with the common law?
Financial benefit is broader than profit when imposing a fine for failing to comply with an enforcement notice.
On 14 January 2013 Mr Smith was fined £250,000 for breaches of s179(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (one of the highest fines ever made against an individual for this offence).
Michael has extensive experience of 1954 Act lease renewal actions, dilapidation claims, forfeiture, lease extensions and Right to Buy decisions. He has expertise in Real Property matters including rectification of the Register and covenant removal, adverse possession, CPO, TOLATA and beneficial interest disputes including estate challenges. He was involved in the leading case on the effect of shared ownership.
MWB v Rock  UKSC 24 - Commercial licence for serviced offices. Licensor orally renegotiates but then resiles from agreement. Effectiveness of NOM clauses.
Rashid v Rashid  UKUT 0332 (TCC) - does adverse possession arise when the paper title is obtained unlawfully? - Court of Appeal due to consider late 2018/ early 2019.
Wodzicki v Wodzicki  EWCA Civ 95 - beneficial interest in family property - constructive trust extends beyond partners - and interest is to be determined after an accounting exercise.
Amin v Barking Central Management Company Ltd  UKUT 232 (LC) - determination of extent of service charge clauses.
Mortgage Express v Da Rocha  EWCA Civ 454- mortgage reposession - mortgagors duty as bailee.
McIntosh v McIntosh (deceased)  EWCA Civ 557 - constructive trust claim against estate.
Wright v Legister  EWHC 2041 (Ch),  WTLR 1675 - Inheritance Act 1975 claim against estate.
Dunbar Assets PLC v Dorcas Holdings Ltd  EWCA Civ 864 - mortgage possession proceedings trial judge cannot grant order prior to evidence and submissions.
Diep v Land Registry  EWHC 3315 (Admin) - when to grant possessory title only on first registration.
Richardson v Midland Heart Ltd (formerly Focus Homes Options) (2008) L & TR 31 - shared ownership claim for beneficial interest.
In Mohamed v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government  EWHC 4045 (Admin) the local planning authority was concerned about the erection of a dwelling in the rear garden of residential premises. A pre-existing garage had been modified. The enforcement notice was directed at the erection of a dwelling, the Inspector's report, on appeal, did not. Ms Mohamed accepted that the garage roof had been altered. The Inspector's report, which was disarmingly short, dealt with the use of the garage as a dwelling but not the erection of a dwelling.
Today the Supreme Court ruled, in Loveridge (AP) v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lambeth, (click here to see the judgment) that statutory damages for unlawful eviction are calculated in the same way regardless of whether the landlord is a public sector or private sector landlord. In calculating statutory damages the effect on the value of the landlord's building of the tenant's security of tenure before eviction is crucial.
Next week Michael Paget will be appearing in the Supreme Court for Mr Loveridge. He was a secure tenant who was unlawfully evicted by his landlord, Lambeth LBC.
Mrs McIntosh was the sole owner of a property where she had lived for many years with her ex-husband. Possession proceedings brought by her estate were resisted by him on the basis of a beneficial interest by way of constructive trust or proprietary estoppel.
A lender held loans secured on a property owned by a borrower company. Acting for partner of director and tenant. The trial judge was satisfied that there was nothing in the defences granted a possession order without a trial nor hearing any submissions. The Court of Appeal set the order aside because it was unjust because of a serious procedural irregularity.
Mortgage Repossession: Disposing of everything left behind.
The Court of Appeal has just considered the duties of a mortgage company when dealing with a mortgagor's personal possessions left in a property after repossession.
Costs order successfully appealed where summary judgment against property owning wife was only partially successful but full costs had been awarded against appellant.
The Claimant was a 72-year-old resident of a site at Dale Farm in breach of planning law. The council proposed to carry out a direct action eviction. She brought a claim for breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 and sought an interim injunction to prevent the eviction. The High Court refused the injunction but granted a temporary stay for 7 days to allow the council to review the latest medical evidence about the claimant.
Michael has an expertise in the enforcement of planning law for developers and in the interplay between planning law and other public law obligations. He was involved in the Occupy litigation.
POCA appeal after s.179 TCPA 1990 conviction.
Kathleen Fox v Sabel  EWHC 746 (Admin)– Statutory nuisance. Noise coming from neighbouring property. Client brought unsuccessful private prosecution. Judicial review of Magistrates' refusal to state a case.
Orchid Runnymede v Persons Unknown 2015 - protest occupation of Magna Carta site.
R v Smith (2014) EWCA Crim 1508 - appeal against £250,000 fine under s.179 TCPA 1990 - reduced to £100,000.
Mohamed v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Govt  EWHC 4045 (Admin) - appealling enforcement notice for garden development.
Smith v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council  EWCA Civ 16 - 9 month committal sentence for breach of planning law upheld where contemptor no longer in control of the land so no longer any coercive element to sentence.
Corporation of London v Samede and others  EWCA Civ 160 (2012) 2 All ER 1039 - Representing St.Paul's protestors seeking to vary extent of possession orders and injunctions.
Brentwood BC v Ball  EWHC 2433 (QB) - no injunction granted where neighbours also in breach of planning.
South Cambridgeshire DC v Gammell (2006) 1 WLR 658 - when to consider Article 8 rights when granting or continuing a s.187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 injunction.
Michael is widely recognised as a leading housing practitioner with a Band 1 rating in Chambers and Partners. He deals with homelessness, unlawful evictions and disrepair. He is a Public Law expert. He appears in judicial review of interim accommodation decisions and allocation decisions. He deals with the interface between Housing and Community Care.
Distinguishing between a quantitative and qualitative assessment of a person's circumstances for priority need determination.
Sanderson v Valuation Tribunal  EWHC (Admin) - council tax liability where property HMO.
Davis v Watford BC  EWCA Civ 529 - correct court to seek interim relief following a non-completion s.204 appeal.
Khan v Feltham Magistrates Court  EWHC 3042 (Admin) - recoverability of litigation costs where liability orders challenged.
Wood v Hull City Council  EWCA Civ 364 - HMOs when to serve improvement notices on more than one property owner.
S & J v Haringey LBC  EWHC 2692 (Admin) - procedural fairness when undertaking Children Act 1989 assessment.
A v Enfield LBC  EWHC 567 (Admin) - was child in need when radicalised.
Powell v Southwark LBC 2016 , CA - appeal refusal to grant interim temporary accommodation.
Omar v Wandsworth LBC 2015 - first post-Hotak high court decision on 'significantly' more vulnerable.
Multiple unlawful eviction claims against same private landlord. Damages of £27k and £50k. Freezing orders; orders for sale and rectification. Total liability £250k.
Islington LBC v Doner  EWCA Civ 1745 - Appeal dismissed by consent on provision of secure tenancy to failed successor who was vulnerable and not under-occupying normal accommodation.
Byrne v Poplar HARCA  EWCA Civ 832  HLR 33 - Relief from sanction guidance.
Henley v Bloom  EWCA Civ 202 - when a fresh disrepair claim following settled possession will and will not be an abuse of process.
Birmingham City Council v Flatt  EWCA Civ 739  HLR 5 - sentencing guidance in committal cases.
Floyd v S (Equality and Human Rights Commission, intervening)  EWCA Civ 201 - circumstances in which disability discrimination defence can be advanced.
Michael has been in litigation where a party's complex needs will often straddle a number of legal areas. A vulnerable family may not be owed any housing duties but need consideration of children or vulnerable adults. A mental health patient may need to assert their legal rights. A local authority will need to decide if an applicant is a child.
MM v Secretary of State for Justice - due to be heard by Supreme Court 26 July 2018.
Can a restricted patient (i.e a prisoner held in a mental hospital) agree to be discharged with conditions which would amount to a deprivation of liberty?
Jeff v Croydon LBC JR/8568/2015 -Age assessment judicial review. A talented football player – but evidence of trafficking through football – issue – how much weight to place on physical appearance. JR allowed in October 2017 permission to appeal to Court of Appeal sought.
F v Harrow LBC JR/557/2017 - Age assessment judicial review dismissed. A claimed was kidnapped in UK, raped and then put on flight to Canada. Was identified when trying to leave UK. A's story was not about what happened in country of origin – but here in UK.
S v Great Ormond Street Hospital 2015 - S was an anorexic who was detained in GOSH's mental health wing. She was 'Gillick' competent and wanted to leave. GOSH obtained authorisation from Family Division - prior to that was S unlawful detained - was this a 'Bournewood' gap No.2? Case settled.
K v Hospital Managers of the Kingswood Centre and others  EWCA Civ 1332 considered how a discharge order from a nearest relative can be delivered to the hospital manager.
TW v Enfield LBC  EWCA Civ 362 in what circumstances can a AMHP dispense with consultation with the nearest relative prior to detention under the Mental Health Act 1983.
Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice must change.
Michael appears in both welfare and financial proceedings. Claims include acting for property and affairs Deputies in family dispute situations, removals of Deputies for financial abuse and best interest welfare claims.
Acting for Enfield LBC, new professional deputies and estates where Matrix Deputies Ltd have been removed as Deputy from over 50 cases following a number of breaches.
COP gave guidance on the Deputy Security Bond call-in procedure.
P v S -Injunction in COP preventing Deputy granting commercial lease followed by removal proceedings.
Challenging safeguarding concerns after no further action from police.
Central Beds v S - best interest decision about S in care home with Mrs S objecting.
Michael is a public law expert. He has been involved in cases considering the interplay between public law obligations and private law remedies and which bodies are governed by public law.
Legitimate expectation and what are good reasons for departing from it.
Staying private law possession proceedings pending judicial review.
Course author and speaker for Central Law Training on Residential Landlord and Tenant Litigation and for The Solicitors Group and Professional Conferences on Property Law.
Many individuals and businesses were forced by banks to buy SWAP products as a condition of obtaining loans. Many of those products were mis-sold and will be part of the current Review. The financial press report that the banks are now setting aside more funds than they have done for PPI claims. There were up to 40,000 mis-sold products – this problem is huge.

References: UKSC 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA