Sylvester Carrott
“Sylvester Carrott... receives excellent feedback from all corners of the market. He is particularly applauded for his cross-examination skills, with one source commenting that he is "able to completely destroy a witness." Chambers and Partners
Practice Areas
Housing, property and administrative law.
Between 1987 and 1990 he was a part time teaching fellow in housing law at Southbank University.
He was the co-author of the third edition of Legal Action's Quiet Enjoyment and has contributed chapters to Butterworth's Residential Landlord and Tenant Guide.
He has also been involved in high profile civil rights litigation in Trinidad and Montserrat.
He currently sits as a part time lawyer Chair of the Residential Property Tribunal Service
Notable Cases
LEWISHAM LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL v MALCOLM [2008] UKHL 43 Parliament must have intended the comparison directed by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 s.24(1)(a) to be a meaningful one in order to distinguish between treatment that was discriminatory and treatment that was not, and the approach to comparators in Clark v TDG Ltd (t/a Novacold Ltd) (1999) 2 All ER 977 was wrong.
COURTNEY MALCOLM (Appellant) v LEWISHAM LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (Respondent) & DISABILITY RIGHTS COMMISSION (Intervener) [2007] EWCA Civ 763 If the obtaining of a possession order would discriminate against a disabled person it would not be lawful to make the order because the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 s.22(3) provided that such discriminatory treatment was unlawful.
HAWKINS & ORS v NEWHAM LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL [2005] EWCA Civ 451 Where the local authority agreed after a suspended possession order was breached that a person could continue to remain in occupation provided that rent was paid satisfactorily, that person was a tolerated trespasser and no new tenancy was created to which family members could succeed under the Housing Act 1985 s.87.
HACKNEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL v PAPINDER SAREEN [2003] EWCA Civ 351 Part VII Housing Act 1996 did not in s.202 or otherwise provide a statutory right of review of a local authority's decision not to refer a housing application to another authority under s.198, and there was accordingly no right of appeal to the county court on that issue under s.204.
DIANA VILLARUEL v RICHMOND-UPON-THAMES LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL CC (Brentford) (Judge Wakefield) 19/7/2002 A decision to house a vulnerable single black mother in an area that she claimed had a high incidence of race-related crime was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
R V SOUTHWARK LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL, EX PARTE AGNES BEMPOA [2002] EWHC 153 (Admin) A local authority was guilty of contempt of court for breach of an undertaking not to evict the claimant where it had no systems in place to ensure that the terms and effect of the undertaking were communicated between its departments.
ROSIE BLANCHFIELD & ORS v (1) ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF TRINIDAD & TOBAGO (2) CHAGUARAMAS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY : (1) YVONNE CROSS (2) WILHEMINA HOYTE v (1) ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF TRINIDAD & TOBAGO (2) CHAGUARAMAS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [2002] UKPC 1 Land in Trinidad and Tobago that had been compulsorily purchased by the Crown from the plaintiffs' predecessors in title so that it could be leased to the US Government for use as a military base did not revert to the plaintiffs when the lease was surrendered and the land was no longer required for the purpose for which it had been acquired.
SOUTHWARK LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL v DENISIA MCINTOSH (2001) A landlord was not liable under the repairing covenant implied by s.11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 merely because there was serious damp in the demised premises. Where the occasion for complaint was damp, the tenant had to establish either that the damp arose from a breach of the covenant (ie physical damage to the structure or exterior of the premises) or that the damp had itself caused damage to the structure or exterior and that this damage in turn had caused the damp.
R v ENFIELD LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL, EX PARTE CHRISTOPHER CAMPBELL (2001) In an unsuccessful application for judicial review, the judicial review proceedings amounted to an abuse of process where the applicant, who sought to quash a decision that he was intentionally homeless and not entitled to temporary accommodation, had not exhausted his statutory remedy of review under the Housing Act 1996.
R v CAMDEN LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL, EX PARTE IFRAH HERSI (2000) A local authority was entitled to refuse to consider an application for re-housing in circumstances where the applicant's mother had, on a previous occasion, refused suitable accommodation offered to her and her household by the local authority.
TOWER HAMLETS LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (Appellant) v NIPA BEGUM (Respondent) (2000) 1 WLR 306. The respondent did not qualify for housing assistance since suitable accommodation was available to her in Bangladesh. The factors to be taken into account in determining whether it was reasonable for the respondent to continue to occupy overseas accommodation included the nature of a county court's power to review a decision of a local housing authority.
SHARON DREW-MORGAN (PLAINTIFF) V MAHNAZ HAMID-ZADEH (DEFENDANT) (1999) In the instant case, the landlord furnished a notice sufficient for the purposes of s.48(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 when a notice under s.21 Housing Act 1988 was served on the tenant, since the s.21 notice informed the tenant of the name and address of the landlord's agent, without limitation or qualification. * Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.(2000) 32 HLR 316 : (2000) 32 HLR 216 : (1999) L & TR 503 : (1999) 26 EG 156 : (1999) EG 72 (CS)
R v BRIGHTON & HOVE COUNCIL, EX PARTE RAMON NACION (1999) Appeal against dismissal of an application for judicial review of the decision of a housing authority to refuse to ensure accommodation for a person while his appeal was pending would normally be inappropriate.
EAST STAFFORDSHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL V FAIRLESS (1998)
R (on the application of AVDIC) v HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (1996)
RE LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN, EX PARTE MBOMBO KABONGO (1996)
R v HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL, EX PARTE AVDIC (1996)
R v KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA ROYAL LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL, EX PARTE BENL-MABROUK (1995)
R v WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL, EX PARTE CROOKS AND SIX OTHER APPLICATIONS (1995)
CARR V HACKNEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (1995)
R v WANDSWORTH LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL, EX PARTE HAWTHORNE (1994)
DINEFWR BOROUGH COUNCIL v ELIZABETH P A JONES (1987)
