Brendan Mullee

Call:1996

Introduction & Contact Details

Brendan Mullee specialises exclusively in public law and social housing. He also has particular expertise in all aspects of anti-social behaviour, allocations and homelessness and related public and administrative law.  He has developed a strong practice since joining Hardwicke Building, with extensive experience acting for registered social landlords and tenants in the county courts, High Court and in the Court of Appeal. Brendan has a mixed practice acting for both local authorities and applicants/tenants and provides a prompt response to instructions.
Brendan’s clients have included public bodies, social landlords, publicly funded clients and private individuals. Brendan is also certified to provide services under the Direct Access Scheme. These services include but are not limited to:

• representation in court or at other tribunals, appeal hearings, committee hearings or similar;
• providing expert advice regarding both legal and practical matters;
• selecting and instructing appropriate experts;
• drafting key documentation

Contact Details for Brendan Mullee

Tel:    020 7242 2523 (switchboard)
Fax:   020 7691 1234
Email: brendan.mullee@hardwicke.co.uk

PUBLIC LAW

Brendan Mullee has considerable expertise in this specialist area, concentrating exclusively in public housing, and social housing. He also has experience of Parts VI & VII allocations and homelessness, nuisance actions (possession and injunction work, as well as ASBOs), all aspects of anti-social behaviour, unlawful eviction complaints and landlord and tenant work generally.
Brendan’s practice comprises all aspects of social housing-related landlord and tenant and public and administrative law, including:

• judicial reviews of local authority homelessness and allocation decisions;
• statutory homelessness appeals in the county court;
• demotion claims;
• possession actions and related injunctions;
• anti-social behaviour issues: ASBIs and other injunctive relief, ASBOs;
• applications to commit for breach of injunctions and undertakings;
• nuisance cases;
• succession and loss of security;
• unlawful eviction and harassment claims

Allocations and Homelessness

In addition to judicial review, Brendan’s public law practice comprises statutory homelessness appeals. Brendan has experience representing both appellants and local authority respondents. He is also experienced in running public law defences to possession actions.

Central and Local Government

Brendan Mullee accepts instructions to advise and represent both local authorities and individuals, particularly in cases relating to social welfare, homelessness, allocation and judicial review.

Judicial Review

Brendan Mullee has developed a healthy judicial review practice since joining Hardwicke Building. His practice focuses on the review of local authority homelessness and allocations decisions. Brendan acts on behalf of applicants and respondent local authorities.

Landlord and Tenant  - Residential

Brendan Mullee advises and represents landlords and tenants in call aspects of disputes over land, such as claims for the possession of residential property, harassment, nuisance and the recovery of service charges.

Social Housing

Brendan is regularly instructed to advise and represent local authorities, including many of the inner-London authorities. He also acts for registered social landlords and public-sector tenants.

 Articles

• ‘A cautionary Tale – Toddler Noise’
• ‘B&B or not B&B? – that is the question’

Cases

Circle 33 Housing Trust Ltd v Kathirkmanathan [2009] EWCA Civ 921

When considering an application for committal a judge had misdirected himself in relation to the  effect of an undertaking given by a tenant to a housing association not to engage, or encourage others to engage, in conduct capable of causing a nuisance or noise. The language of the undertaking did not cover permitting or allowing antisocial behaviour to take place.
The language of the undertaking was not sufficient to do what the judge assumed it would do, namely to make K responsible for ensuring that he did not cause noise to his neighbours.(1) The language did not cover allowing antisocial behaviour to take place. The words "allowing" and "permitting" did not appear in the undertaking. Properly drawn the undertaking should have bound K to prevent others behaving in that way in his flat. Accordingly, the judge had misdirected himself in relation to the effect of the undertaking. (2) There had been no finding that K had personally been responsible for any act. The noise had emanated from his flat but the judge did not find that any specific act creating a noise was an act by K as opposed to anyone else. (3) The correct sentence would have been a suspended sentence of four weeks to ensure future compliance with the undertaking.

Apczynski v Hounslow London Borough Council (Court of Appeal: 7 December 2006)

The claimant and his wife were homeless and applied to the defendant local authority for housing. By a letter, the authority offered the claimant accommodation in a property owned not by them but by H Ltd. The property was referred to as "an hotel" and the arrangement was described as "a booking". Subsequently, the claimant sued the authority on the basis that he was their tenant and they were in breach of the covenant to repair. The judge held that the claimant was not the authority's tenant.
Held, refusing claimant's application for permission to appeal, that a tripartite agreement between a property owner, a housing authority and an allegedly homeless applicant was a common arrangement and the problem of whether the applicant had a tenancy and, if so, who was the landlord was frequently encountered. However, the issue was fact sensitive and depended entirely on the nature of the agreement. Accordingly, the resolution of the issue in one case was unlikely to be of general assistance, unless the basic agreement between the parties was on the same terms and the other facts were materially the same. In the instant case the terms of the letter did not indicate that there was landlord and tenant relationship between the authority and the claimant, accordingly, there was no real prospect of any appeal succeeding.