Morayo Fagborun Bennett

Areas of expertise

• Property
  • Commercial landlord & tenant

    Commercial landlord & tenant

    Morayo advocates and provides advice in a wide variety of commercial L&T claims and cases involving mixed-use developments and buildings. Recent cases have concerned break clauses, dilapidations, disputed 1954 Act renewals, breach of covenant and forfeiture in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

    Related work:

    • Sara & Hossein Asset Holdings Ltd v Blacks Outdoor Retail Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1521, Sara & Hossein Asset Holdings Ltd v Blacks Outdoor Retail Ltd [2020] EWHC 1263 (Ch) (19 May 2020) and Sara Hossein Asset Holding Ltd v Blacks Outdoor Retail Limited [2019] EWHC 3414 (Ch) (9 December 2019) concerned with whether a certification clause was conclusive both as to the amount of and recoverability  of service charges, which involved a mixed question of law and fact, under the lease,  and whether such a clause excluded any defence that the tenant might put forward to the effect that the sums so certified by the landlord did not properly form part of the service charge and were therefore not lawfully due under the lease.
    • Patel –  Morayo acted for Mr Patel the leaseholder of a mixed use building after he sub-let the residential parts of the building in breach of his lease. He brought a claim for wrongful forfeiture, damages and relief from forfeiture following his landlord’s physical re-entry into the commercial part of the mixed-use property and offer of new tenancy agreements to the sub-tenants who occupied the residential part of the property.
    • Tovagliari v Katz: Representing appellant in Court of Appeal permission proceedings following rectification of a commercial lease which was contracted out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and rendered the notice to renew invalid.
    • Gjoka v Hassa: Acting for landlord in forfeiture proceedings following the tenant’s denial of his title
    • Osman v Omunua (Queens Bench Division) Representing the second Defendant in contempt of court proceedings when a direct debit to the Claimant’s mortgage company was cancelled in contravention of an injunction order. Application dismissed due to defects in the Claimant’s application to commit. Obtained an order for costs against the Claimant.
    • True Pearl Limited v Khudeir: Duties of an involuntary bailee following the forfeit by the leaseholder of her non-residential lease.
    • Julian Litvinoff: Renewal of business tenancies concerned with issues under s37(1C)(a) and (b)(ii) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, compensation to the tenant by the landlord where the latter has served a section 25 objecting to the notice for the grant of a new lease on ground 30(1)(f).
    • Nanda v Muhith and Rahman: Representing a landlord in dealing with the effect and damages flowing from a tenant unilaterally vacating the premises prior to expiry of the lease due to the recession.
    • Havering v Gabriel: Concerning the interim and market rent under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 for a laundrette in a parade of shops with restrictive covenants.
  • Housing (social & privately rented)

    Housing (social & privately rented)

    Morayo is a “very diligent, thorough and impressive” recommended junior in social housing matters with significant experience in disrepair, statutory nuisance, unlawful eviction, possession proceedings for matters including rent arrears, trespass, subletting, succession, only or principal home, nuisance and anti-social behaviour. She has extensive experience of with Equality Act, public law and human rights challenges and with acting in anti-social behaviour injunctions and committals, in both the county and youth courts.

    In the Magistrates’ court, Morayo has considerable experience handling statutory nuisance, HMO licence and EPA 1990, council tax and business rates proceedings dealing with liability orders, applications to set aside such orders and appealing abatement notices.

    Related work:

    • Carrera v Metropolitan– Morayo’s success resulted in the tenant’s particulars of claim being struck out in a disrepair claim and led to the issue of whether the case should then be allocated to the small claims track based on the value of the repair works of the remaining proposed amended particulars, using either in-house contractor costs or the National Housing Federation standard rates.
    • Poplar Harca v Newby, Thomas and Toure – 3 day youth court injunction, exclusion orders and committal matter following a violent assault at a DLR station.
    • Peabody Trust v Nezhad – the housing association was found not to be vicariously liable for the actions of a fraudulent employee who granted an intermediate market rent tenancy to ineligible people by presenting false information as to their circumstances to Peabody Trust. Morayo also persuaded the court that the sum of £4,000, if paid to the employee, was not a tenancy deposit within the meaning of section 212 Housing Act 2004 and was more in the nature of a bribe or payment to secure the letting.
    • Bennett v L&Q – disrepair counterclaim acting for a vulnerable social housing tenant who continued to suffer distress and inconvenience even after she was placed in alternative accommodation for 3 years. Rent arrears arose because both the benefits and landlord continued to send correspondence to the property despite knowledge that she had been decanted from there.
    • LB Sutton v Aslett – outright possession was justified on the basis of the homophobic abuse suffered by the upstairs neighbours and was proportionate under the Equality Act 2010, even without the most serious charge (of arson).
    • Hardaker v Adactus Housing Group – 3 day disrepair and personal injury trial in which the court accepted that the claim for £25,000 was exaggerated and that the claimant’s failure to mitigate her loss by not providing access meant that she was only entitled to damages for the pre-issue period, as the repairs could have been completed before then.
    • A2 Dominion v Cocks – 2 day claim for possession on grounds of rent arrears and that the Defendant failed to occupy the property as her only or principal home.
    • Centrepoint Soho v Mehdaoui – considered the question of whether the Defendants occupied under a licence or tenancy of supported housing provided for homeless young people and consisted of 19 self-contained bedsits let on ASTs and 30 shared bed-spaces that benefitted from communal cooking and washing facilities.
    • De Giovine v Family Mosaic Housing – disrepair, personal injury, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, rent overcharge and breach of health and safety case following a withdrawal of an offer to sell the property as an alternative to undertaking extensive repairs and structural works.
    • Network Stadium v Raphael – claim for possession of the property on ground 7A of the Housing Act 1988 following a closure order. Court considered but rejected the disability discrimination defences raised under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act.
    • Samuels v Cooper and Porto – claim concerned with the statutory compensation under s.214 of the Housing Act 2004 for the Defendant’s failure to correctly deal with the rent deposit. The Claimant had entered into a series of fixed term tenancy agreements and Morayo argued successfully that the limitation period was not a bar to recovery of compensation and that each failure to protect the deposit within 30 days of the start of each of the fixed term tenancy agreements was a separate breach entitling the Claimant to compensation.
    • Charalambous and Karali v Ng and Ng[2014] EWCA Civ 1604: A landlord was precluded from serving a notice seeking possession under the Housing Act 1988 s21 where the tenant’s deposit had not been paid into an authorised scheme as required by the Housing Act 2004 s213, notwithstanding the fact that when the deposit was originally paid, there had been no obligation to pay it into an authorised scheme.
    • De Santos v Hill-Jones: Morayo represented the landlord in unlawful eviction proceedings in which the former tenant sought substantial damages following 7 months of being street homeless. The period of compensation was limited to 8 weeks and no award for special, aggravated or exemplary damages was made.
    • East Homes v Shah: Successfully obtained outright possession order in multi-day possession case against tenant subletting part of the property (basement and garden shed).
    • Singh v Sanctuary Housing: A large family was moved to inadequate temporary accommodation for 7 months and there was outstanding disrepair upon their return to the property.
    • Farah v Hillingdon LBC [2014] EWCA Civ 359: In conducting a review of an applicant’s eligibility for accommodation under the Housing Act 1996 s.202, a reviewing officer had failed to give reasons for accepting the correctness of a housing officer’s conclusion that the applicant’s accommodation had been affordable and that she had become homeless intentionally by failing to pay her rent when it fell due. The review decision was set aside and remitted for reconsideration by another housing officer.
    • Supple v FMH and Oakwood: A disrepair claim concerning recently built design and build accommodation. The tenant brought a disrepair claim against FMH, who had in turn brought a Part 20 claim for an indemnity and/or contribution against the property developers concerning the construction of the roof within the warranty period.
    • LB Greenwich v Johnson: Successfully obtained an outright possession order for a local authority on grounds 1 and 3 of Sch 2 of HA 85 in a hoarding case in which the tenant refused to accept any assistance from the local authority to clear and repair the deteriorating property.
    • Poplar Harca v Philips: injunction against a pirate radio station DJ preventing him from entering blocks of flats owned by the housing association or installing his equipment within the building or within Tower Hamlets.
    • Francis v FMH: Successfully represented a housing association in a three day hearing to determine whether the Claimant was entitled to an order for specific performance and damages for breach of a Tomlin Order following settlement of the disrepair case.
    • SOHA v Over: The court considered whether a requirement that a potential successor “lived with” with the tenant “during the 12 months” before her death meant throughout the 12 months or merely during the course of 12 months. The court held that “lived with during” was ambiguous.
    • FMH v Streatfield v Canavan: Whether a tenancy agreement granted by a body which could grant secure tenancy prior to 15th Jan 1989, remained a secure tenancy if the granting body changed its name or amalgamated.
  • Leasehold & leasehold management

    Leasehold & leasehold management

    Morayo is regularly instructed in residential service charge disputes for both landlords and leaseholders. She also gives advice and acts in cases concerned with commercial and residential leaseholder management issues.

    She handles a wide variety of claims including service charge recovery claims, forfeiture proceedings in residential and commercial properties, disputes concerning major works, breaches of repair, nuisance and sub-letting covenants, cases requiring strategic advice on the recoverability of legal costs, mixed-use developments and estate rent charges disputes.

    Morayo provides seminars and workshops on service charges in mixed used development, forfeiture and legal costs.

    Related work:

    • The Lesses of Flats 1-13 17 Marine Parade, Whistable v Whitstable Homes Limited and Marine Maintenance Limited CHI/29UC/LSC/2019/0082– determination under s.27 L&TA 1985 as to the payability and reasonableness of services charges levied prior to the enfranchisement of the freehold of the flats. FTT considered what was required to amount to certification within the terms of the lease. It also held that the former freeholder was only entitled to recover the repairs and maintenance costs accepted by the lessess as it had failed to demonstrate that the charges from their sub-contractors were reasonably incurred or of a reasonable amount.
    • Waterfront Apartments (Tankerton) Limited v Whitstable Homes Limited – Morayo acted for the nominee purchaser in a collective enfranchisement case concerning the terms of acquisition. She also acted for the 13 leaseholders in the connected service charge dispute.
    • QLTA which was required to be dealt with under a public notice: Advising a housing association landlord on whether they were required to further consult their leaseholders pursuant to section 20 LTA 1985 following the revision of one of their Qualifying Long Term Agreements and on dispensation
    • Estate rent charges: Represented Gallions Housing Associationin a series of Rentcharges Act 1977 cases concerning the payability of estate charges by freeholders on the Thamesmead Estate.
    • London Borough of Camden Home Ownership Services v Olaniyan and Oshibote: Assisted leaseholder in defending service charge claim by recovering substantial damages in his disrepair counterclaim against freeholders following Right to Buy scheme.
    • Riverside Heights Management Company v Moffatt, CAM/33UG/LSC/2013/0093: Acting for landlord to recover service charges, administrative charges and costs. County court proceedings were transferred to the FTT for determination of the reasonableness of the service and administrative charges. Matter transferred to county court for enforcement and determination of contractual costs.
    • Poplar Harca v Altman, LON/00BG/ 2009/0072: Decision of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal on an application under s168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Management company found to be in breach of a lease it had sublet to the local authority’s Homeless Persons Unit (“HPU”) as a result of noise nuisance caused by HPU’s non-secure tenant.
  • Real property & mortgages

    Real property & mortgages

    Morayo’s practice includes property development, boundary disputes, adverse possession, measured duty of care, easements, land registration, restrictive covenants, mortgages and other charges including estate charges, neighbour and party wall disputes. Morayo is also a regular contributor to the Lexis PSL Property Q&A.

    Related work:

    • Provided strategic advice to a Parish Council on the regulatory framework to ensure it complied with the statutory requirements for receiving a gift of property for the benefit of the community.
    • Coope v Ward [2015] EWCA Civ 30: The trial judge had found that an easement of support had been extinguished as a result of excessive use and that the retaining wall collapsed as a result of the overloading of the higher land over the years. Concerned whether there was a measured duty of care between adjoining landlords in respect of a retaining wall following its collapse and the extent of such a duty. Court of Appeal found that such a duty could exist but that it did not extend to requiring the Coopes to contribute to the cost of some unspecified engineering solution in relation to the wall
    • Deadman v Singh: Mrs Deadman purchased a property for £77k in 2001 and in November 2009, she sold the unencumbered property for £20k apparently to discharge unsecured debts of around £7,500. She subsequently brought a claim to set aside the sale on grounds of unconscionable bargain and fraudulent misrepresentation. Singh argued that any special disadvantage that Mrs Deadman was under was mitigated by having independent legal advice from conveyancing solicitors. HHJ Simpkiss decided both claims in Mrs Deadman’s favour.
    • Braithwaite v Robin F Clark & Co Solicitors & Jerome John and Wayne Hyde: Concerned vendor’s lien and unilateral notice in a professional negligence claim involving jointly instructed conveyance solicitors and breach of contract claim against buyer after failure to pay purchase price.
    • Mortgage Express v Kennedy: Possession proceedings concerned with whether the wife fraudulently secured loans on the property which was in her vulnerable husband’s sole name.
    • Gadhavi v Bassi: Injunction and damages claim concerning party wall, boundaries and trespass following the erection of an extension between neighbouring properties.
• Discrimination & equality

  Discrimination & equality

  Morayo is an experienced advocate in discrimination matters, including those relating to claims of race, sex, pregnancy and maternity, disability, age and religion discrimination.  She can provide advice or representation in direct and indirect discrimination cases, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment, victimisation and breach of the PSED.

  Services & Discrimination Disputes

  Morayo has provided representations in cases concerned with Part 3 of the Equality Act 2010, the provision of goods, services and facilities and the exercise of public functions.

  Related Work:  Services (Part 3, Equality Act 2010)

  • Nash– reasonable adjustment in the provision of physical access to the auction premises
  • Stock v SHAGS – 1 day trial, representing the Society, requirement for an assessor, provision of the service of allocation of garden allotments to members, disability discrimination and reasonable adjustment case
  • Gheedan – reasonable adjustments in the provisions made to return unwanted goods to an online retailer

  
  Premises & Discrimination Disputes

  Morayo represents housing associations, local authorities, tenants and leaseholders in premises disputes within Part 4 of the Equality Act 2010.

  Related Work: Premises (Part 4, Equality Act 2010)

  • Daniel Sturridge and Jamilla Ferreira v O’Neill and O’Neill – drafted the defence against the claim for racial harassment after Daniel Sturridge and his partner discovered their landlord’s 11 year old’s Netflix account labelled with a racial slur (“n***er”). She also advised the O’Neills at the initial stages of the proceedings in 2019. Please click here and here to read more.
  • Family Mosaic Housing v Upton & Csernoklavek – judicial review of refusal to permit extended sublet of shared ownership lease, allegation of religious discrimination
  • Perring – assured shorthold tenant’s requests for permission to make structural and non-structural changes to accommodation provided by a private landlord under an AST
  • Palmer – shared ownership leasesholder’s request for a housing association to make adaptations to the communal areas by the installation of a ramp into the garden rather than a stair lift directly from their flat
  • Possession cases (rent arrears and anti-social behaviour) raising defences under the Equality Act 2010, including those requiring the assistance of a litigation friend
  • Peabody Trust v Abdul-Wahab and Nagi – succession policy, anti-social behaviour, hoarding
  • Peabody Trust v Pryce -capacity to conduct proceedings, hospital admission, rent arrears and counterclaim for breach of the EA 2010, raised issues in relation to the extent of support that the landlord was still required to provide
  • Peabody Trust v Basoglu – hoarding
  • Peabody Trust v Deshaykhi – alcohol and drug abuse issues, the Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010 the statutory instrument 2010/2128, possession
  • Peabody v Hutchinson – disability discrimination, possession proceedings,
  • Wilding v Family Mosaic – breach of duty to make reasonable adjustments by failing to provide suitable alternative accommodation during decant, disability related improvements
  • Metropolitan Housing Trust v Boreland – acting for landlord in ASB possession claim, tenant deliberately started fire to kill rats in the property, capacity to litigate,
  • Metropolitan v Binns (by his litigation friend the OS) – supported housing in which support provided by the local authority in housing association accommodation,
  • Metropolitan v Wild – PSED, s. 6 Care Act 2014, rent arrears and ASB
  • East Homes v Shah – trial, disabled tenant and children, subletting unrelated to disability. Outright possession order
  • Riverside Group Ltd v Simpson – tenant found guilty of assault on neighbour, 2 day possession case, information of a diagnosis of delusional disorder obtained mid-trial
  • 149 and disability discrimination in homelessness proceedings – interim accommodation pending review
  • LB Southwark v Jones – disability discrimination and committal proceedings.
  • LB Sutton v Wooldridge – injunctions, capacity to litigate and Wookey capacity
  • RB Kensington & Chelsea v Augustus – injunction and disability discrimination
  • Simon Osborne-Smith v Westminster – leaseholder, disability discrimination, scope of the duty to make reasonable adjustment and Schedule 4 duties relating to common parts.
  • Portsmouth City Council v Childs – possession proceedings concerned with disability, lack of capacity to consent to treatment, determining whether ASB arises from disability and a duty to re-house under different statutory duties
  • LB Leicester v Hall – representing tenant ASB case in which the incidents were perpetrated by the tenant’s children who had disabilities, witness statements from 25 witnesses were produced, hearsay and anonymous evidence, and whether possession is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
  • Newark and Sherwood DC v Watson and Ball – representing tenants in ASB case in which there were admissions in relation to incidents and hearsay and anonymous evidence in relation to the disputed matters, discrimination arising from disability (schizophrenia and depression), after care under s.117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Employment & Discrimination Disputes

  Having first undertaken employment cases as a FRU Representative in 2003, Morayo continues to represent clients in unfair dismissal cases (including redundancy) and cases involving discrimination. She has co-marked the City University BPTC FRU Employment Law Option since 2012. She is able to undertake appropriate cases on a direct access basis.

  Related Work: Discrimination in employment (Part 5, Equality Act 2010)

  • Cable v Malling Health UK Ltd (Ashford ET) – age discrimination – Counsel for the successful in constructive unfair dismissal and detriment as a result of age discrimination matter.
  • Turner – age discrimination – dismissal by new manager
  • Williams – race discrimination – dismissal on the basis that the agency worker did not “fit in”
  • Payami (South London ET) Five-day tribunal race discrimination claim.
  • Smith – race, disability discrimination and allegation of failure to make reasonable adjustments to make the workplace covid-19 safe.
  • Tara – race and religious discrimination claim
  • Baker v Bluefield (Ashford ET) Counsel for the Claimant who claimed unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, disability related harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments following his dismissal after his return to work after treatment for cancer. Case settled following his death.
  • O’Brien v SEM Limited (Ashford ET) – Counsel for the successful Claimant in his claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination following his dismissal for misconduct (Facebook comments case).
  • Lewis v Southwark Council – Advising the Claimant on disability discrimination claim and availability of ill health retirement pension.
  • Jeffrey v Buckinghamshire City Council – Acting for the local authority in a victimisation, harassment and disability discrimination case.

  Related Work: Employment 

  • Trafalgar Construction Corporation Ltd v Singh (EAT) Successfully opposed the grant of extension of time for an appeal, which had been filed without the written reasons of the judge below.
  • Represented foundation school in an employment case in which a senior teacher was dismissed for gross misconduct following a football game in which two students claimed to have been injured.
  • Cases concerned with redundancy payment and trial of alternative employment.
  • Apex Masonry Contractors v Everritt (UKEAT/0482/04/SM) – Contract of employment/ sick pay and holiday pay case..
  • Allen v W J Marle t/a Benchley Cleaning (PA/1743/03/TM) – suitable alternative employment/ redundancy case
  • Southwark Carers v Parsons (UKEAT/0775/04/ILB) and Parsons v Southwark Carers (UKEAT/0471/04/MAA) – Late amendment of the ET1 to include a claim for unfair dismissal as a result of making a protected disclosure.