The authority had granted a lease to a housing society who had in turn granted the occupants’ leases. A successor then revoked the head lease. The occupiers appealed against possession orders, saying that they had come to acquire article 8 rights in respect of their occupation.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. A court hearing a judicial review of an authority’s decision to seek possession of land occupied as residence, should look at the several decisions involved and test each for reasonableness. It should not restrict itself to a pure rationality test: ‘a public authority should take account of the personal circumstances of the occupier known to it, but it does not follow from this that there will ever be circumstances in which it will be unreasonable to seek possession against trespassers in situations similar to those in Kay. Those situations may make it unreasonable not to allow a period of time to bring the possession order sought into effect but that is something which the court oversees and which the law allows for.’
However: ‘under domestic property law the appellants have no right to occupy their respective premises, of which the council has an unqualified right of possession. The appellants fall outside the categories to which Parliament has provided protection. The council has no duty to accommodate the appellants and has a duty to manage its assets. The appellants have put in a draft pleading before us, but it does not allege any facts which provide some special claim to remain. If the matter were remitted the court would be bound to make an order for possession, although it would be entitled to take account of the personal circumstances in considering the time at which the order would be effective.’
Waller, lloyd, Richards LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 613, [2009] 26 EG 112, [2009] 37 EG 106, Times 23-Jul-2009, [2010] 1 WLR 446, [2010] PTSR 66, [2009] NPC 82, [2009] BLGR 773, [2010] 1 P and CR 3
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – Doherty and others v Birmingham City Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local authority can obtain a summary order for possession against an occupier of a site which it owns and has been used for many years as a gipsy and travellers’ caravan site. His licence to occupy the site has come to . .
Cited – McGlynn v Welwyn Hatfield District Council CA 1-Apr-2009
The appellant was a non-secure tenant of the respondent. It had served a notice to quit and he now appealed against an order for possession on public law grounds.
Held: There had been a delay between the issue of the notice to quit and the . .
Cited – Doran v Liverpool City Council CA 3-Mar-2009
The claimant sought to set aside an order requiring him to give up possession of a caravan pitch held under the 1968 Act.
Held: The decision to serve a notice to quit which was reasonable on the facts known to the local authority at the time . .
Cited – Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd HL 25-Apr-2007
Belfast had failed to license sex shops. The company sought review of the decision not to grant a licence.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The refusal was not a denial of the company’s human rights: ‘If article 10 and article 1 of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Barber v London Borough of Croydon CA 11-Feb-2010
The tenant who suffered learning and behavioural difficulties appealed against an order for possession of his council flat. He had become aggressive with the caretaker. The council sought possession, and he defended the claim saying that the council . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Human Rights, Judicial Review
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.347138