The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out to evict her. She claimed that the authority had to get a court authority before so evicting her.
Held: A court order was not required. If there was an interference with the licensee’s article 8 rights, that interference was proportionate and justified. The decision in Hamad was not decided per incuriam. As to the appliacnt’s human rights ‘even though her rights in respect of the Flat were arranged by PCHA on behalf of Newham, the owner, Veni, is not a public authority and any steps taken by it to retake possession could not constitute action taken by a public authority in breach of her Convention rights.’
Lloyd LJ (dissenting) ‘a reading of section 3 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 which does not allow it to extend to the recovery of possession from someone in the position of the Appellant is not compatible with her Convention rights under article 8. I would therefore hold that, although Mohamed v. Manek is otherwise a binding authority on the point, the effect of section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is that, in order to ensure compatibility with an occupier’s right to respect for his or her home under article 8, from 2 October 2000, where a person is in residential occupation of self-contained accommodation under a licence, the application of section 3 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 is not excluded by the fact of the accommodation having been made available in pursuance of a local housing authority’s duties under section 188(1) or section 190(2)(a) of the Housing Act 1996. ‘
Judges:
Lord Justice Tuckey Lord Justice Lloyd Lord Justice Pill
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 547, Times 28-Jun-2006, [2006] QB 831
Links:
Statutes:
Housing Act 1996 188, Protection from Eviction Act 1977, Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 (SI 2003/3326), European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Not per incuriam – Mohamed v Manek and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea CA 28-Apr-1995
The claimant applied to the Council for accommodation, claiming to be homeless and in priority need. The council housed him in a hotel owned by Mr Manek in Tooting Bec . He had a room, a separate bathroom and lavatory, and shared use of a kitchen. . .
Cited – Regina v Newham Borough Council ex parte Ojuri (No 5) Admn 11-Sep-1998
. .
Cited – Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council Ex parte Puhlhofer HL 2-Jan-1986
Not Homeless Even if Accomodation Inadequate
The applicants, a married couple, lived with a young child and later also a baby in one room of a guest house. They were given breakfast but had no cooking or washing facilities. They succeeded on a judicial review of the housing authority’s . .
Cited – Mohram Ali v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council CA 27-May-1992
A challenge to the exercise of homelessness duties by a local authority must be by way of Judicial Review. Nolan LJ: ‘It follows that in my judgment the public law duties of the council were not discharged until they had completed the process of . .
Cited – O’Rourke v Mayor etc of the London Borough of Camden HL 12-Jun-1997
The claimant had been released from prison and sought to be housed as a homeless person. He said that his imprisonment brought him within the category of having special need. He also claimed damages for the breach.
Held: The Act was intended . .
Cited – Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd CA 1975
The court looked at what makes a case decided per incuriam: ‘a case is not decided per incuriam because counsel have not cited all the relevant authorities or referred to this or that rule of court or statutory provision.’ (Lord Denning MR) . .
Cited – Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council HL 1-Nov-2001
Mrs M came to England in 1994 living first in Ealing and then Hammersmith. Mr M came later and lived elsewhere in Hammersmith. Hammersmith gave them jointly temporary accommodation, first in a hotel and then in a flat. They then applied under . .
Cited – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .
Cited – Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue CA 27-Apr-2001
The defendant resisted accelerated possession proceedings brought for rent arrears under his assured shorthold tenancy, by a private housing association who was a successor to a public authority.
Held: Once the human rights issue was raised, . .
Cited – Morelle Ltd v Wakeling CA 1955
The plaintiff asserted ownership of leasehold land. A similar situation had arisen in an earlier case befoe the Court of appeal, and the court was asked to decide that that case had been decided per incuriam.
Held: The per incuriam principle . .
Cited – Pittalis v Grant CA 1989
A point was raised for the first time on appeal.
Held: Though an appellate court could exclude a pure question of law which had not been raised at first instance from being raised on appeal, the usual practice was to allow it to be taken where . .
Cited – Regina (W) v Lambeth London Borough Council CA 3-May-2002
A family had been found to be voluntarily homeless. The family asked the authority to provide housing to the family under the 1989 Act from its duty to care for the children.
Held: The 1989 Act did not change the law in the 1980 Act. The . .
Cited – Maunsell v Olins HL 1975
The House considered whether a sub-tenant could claim protection under the 1968 Act. This depended on the interpretation of the word ‘premises’ in the context of a sub-tenancy of a cottage on a farm let under an agricultural tenancy.
Held: . .
Cited – Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd HL 1975
The issue was whether an English court was able to award damages in Sterling only.
Held: The House distinguished clearly between the substance of the debtor’s obligations and the effect of English procedural law when a debt in a foreign . .
Cited – Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd CA 31-Jul-2001
The parties were landlord and tenant. The landlords served a notice to increase the rent, but the tenant failed to serve a counter-notice within the relevant period. The landlord claimed the tenant was bound, and appealed a decision against them. . .
Cited – Wellcome Trust Ltd v Hamad; Ebied and Another v Hopkins and Another; Church Commissioners for England v Baines CA 30-Jul-1997
There was a tenancy for mixed residential and business purposes and, with the landlord’s permission, the tenant sublet one of the residential flats within the premises to the defendant, who enjoyed protection under the Act of 1977.
Held: . .
Cited – Eastleigh Borough Council v Walsh 1985
The court considered the nature of a tenancy created by the local authority when satisfying its duty to provide temporary accomodation pending a homelessness assessment. The agreement was described as a tenancy, and held to be one. . .
Cited – Duke v GEC Reliance Systems Limited CA 16-Feb-1987
The court was said to have failed to have proper regard to a European Directive.
The court discussed the meaning of the phrase ‘per incuriam’: ‘I have always understood that the doctrine of per incuriam only applies where another division of . .
Cited – Esselte Ab and British Sugar Plc v Pearl Assurance Plc CA 8-Nov-1996
The tenant was no longer in occupation of the demised premises when he served a s27 notice.
Held: A business tenancy ceases at end of the lease, if the premises are not actually occupied by the tenant despite any notices given. The occupation . .
Cited – London Borough of Hackney v Lambourne 1992
Ralph Gibson LJ said: ‘The defendants . . have no private law right to remain in occupation of the temporary premises let to them. Their private law right is to the accommodation which the council has, in the exercise of its discretion, judged to be . .
Cited – Family Housing Association v Jones CA 1990
The association as licensee of a local authority granted what was described as a licence to the defendant to occupy premises on a temporary basis.
Held: The court found that a licence granted to satisfy a housing duty was a tenancy.
Slade . .
Cited – Rakhit v Carty 1990
A previous decision of the court was found to be within the normal categories of per incuriam, because the earlier decision was made in ignorance of a vitally relevant statutory provision, which showed it to be wrong. The earlier decision was . .
Cited – Williams v Glasbrook Brothers Ltd CA 1947
It was not open to the Court of Appeal to review a previous decision of the same Court for conformity with an earlier decision of the House of Lords (Lord Greene MR). It was for the House of Lords to correct the previous Court of Appeal’s error, and . .
Cited – Williams v Fawcett CA 1985
The court was asked as to the requirement of a notice to show cause why a person should not be committed to prison for contempt of court.
Held: The court refused to follow its earlier decisions as to committal procedures where they were the . .
Cited – Rickards v Rickards CA 1990
The Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which it could depart from its own earlier decisions under the residual principle. The court refused to follow a previous decision of the same court because, although the relevant House of Lords . .
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 – Rogerson v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council 2005
The court considered both whether Mohamed v. Manek was still binding and whether the facts of the case were covered by the prior decision, having regard in particular to the emphasis on transience which emerges from the judgment of Nourse LJ. Heled: . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Uratemp Ventures Limited v Collins HL 11-Oct-2001
Can a single room within a hotel comprise a separate dwelling within the 1988 Act and be subject to an assured tenancy?
Held: A single room can be a dwelling. Each case must be interpreted in its own light as a question of fact, but respecting . .
Cited – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – Warder v Cooper 1970
The locks were changed during the absence of the former licensee, but while his possessions were still in the property. The former tenant had no continuing right to occupy the property.
Held: The former licensee had not been wrongfully . .
Cited – Billson and Others v Residential Tenancies Ltd CA 11-Feb-1991
As to the exercise of relief in equity outside the limitation period: ‘This is not to say that courts of equity should now grant relief without any regard to the statutory provisions. Equity follows the law, but not slavishly nor always: see Cardozo . .
Cited – McPhail v Persons, Names Unknown CA 1973
The court was asked to make an order against persons unknown in order to recover land. Although an owner of land which was being occupied by squatters was entitled to take the remedy into his own hand, he was encouraged to go to a common law court . .
Cited by:
Cited – RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 22-Oct-2008
The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was . .
Cited – Yorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall and Another CA 24-Oct-2008
The bank had obtained a judgement against the defendant, and took a charging order. Nothing happened for more than twelve years, and the defendant now argued that the order and debt was discharged.
Held: The enforcement of the charging order . .
Cited – ZH and CN, Regina (on The Applications of) v London Boroughs of Newham and Lewisham SC 12-Nov-2014
The court was asked whether the 1977 Act required a local authorty to obtain a court order before taking possession of interim accommodation it provided to an apparently homeless person while it investigated whether it owed him or her a duty under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Human Rights
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241721