The issuing of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) against a tenant or a member of a tenant’s family is strong evidence that the tenant has failed to do enough to retain entitlement to possession of the property. ASBOs are only issued when anti-social behaviour is both persistent and serious. Where such behaviour is serious enough to warrant forfeiture of the tenant’s right of possession, the authority may apply to the court for a possession order. However, the issuing of an ASBO is not conclusive evidence that a repossession order is appropriate.

A tenant who is able to persuade the court that there is a reasonable basis for the belief that his or his family’s anti-social behaviour will stop has a good chance of retaining possession. The ultimate test is whether the possession order would represent a fair balance between the rights of the tenant and those of his or her neighbours.

In a recent case, which involved a mother whose 13-year-old-son had a long history of vandalism and ‘appalling misbehaviour’, the continuing dreadful behaviour of the child who was subject to the ASBO, coupled with the absence of any signs of remorse or any reason to expect an improvement, meant that the tenant had forfeited her right to remain in the premises.

One of the less well-publicised clauses of the new Company Law Reform Bill, currently before Parliament, is that the minimum age for appointment as a company director in England is to be lowered to 16. However, the Secretary of State will be empowered to allow those under 16 to be a director in different parts of the UK, should it be deemed necessary.

If your entrepreneurial children need the benefit of a limited liability company, or you would like to involve a minor child as a director of your company, then this will soon be possible. At present, however, any shares in the company which are allocated to them will have to be held in trust for them until they reach majority.

A 74-year-old woman who was told she would have to wait three or four months for treatment for severe osteoarthritis and who decided as a result to be treated abroad looks set to win her battle to be compensated for the cost of her treatment.

Grandmother Yvonne Watts was suffering from such severe hip pain that she spent £4,000 to go to France for treatment. Bedford Primary Care Trust refused to approve the expenditure. Having initially been told she would have to wait a year for treatment in this country, Ms Watts saw a consultant in France who told her that her need for an operation was urgent. Returning to the UK, she saw another consultant who recommended that her surgery be moved up the waiting list, but she still faced a considerable delay. Accordingly, Ms Watts decided to have the treatment in France.

The Government’s claim that the EU rules which apply to the free movement of goods and services do not apply to medical services was rejected by the EU’s Advocate General, who concluded, 'The absence of a clearly defined procedure within the NHS for considering applications for treatment outside the system ... constitutes a restriction of ... freedom to receive services.'

If the European Court affirms the judgment of the Advocate General, Ms Watts’s costs will be refundable.

Tougher laws aimed at combating the growing number of attacks on firefighters and other emergency workers have received cross-party support in the House of Commons. The Emergency Workers (Protection) Bill received its second reading in the House of Commons on 3 March. The Private Members’ Bill, which was introduced by Labour MP Alan Williams and which has the backing of the Government, seeks to make it a specific offence to assault, obstruct or hinder emergency workers in England and Wales. The offence would carry a maximum fine of £5,000 or a nine-month jail sentence.

The Fire Brigades Union recently published research showing that attacks on UK firefighters were currently numbering at least 40 a week with the problem getting worse. The level of violence in the NHS is also rising, with more than 100,000 incidents a year.