Di Palma v United Kingdom: ECHR 1 Dec 1986

(Commission/admissibility) The applicant’s lease was forfeited on her non-payment of a service charge and possession was ordered. Her primary claim was made (unsuccessfully) under article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. But she also complained that her eviction from her home constituted an unjustified interference with the right to respect for her home protected by article 8. The Commission held this complaint to be manifestly ill-founded because ‘any interference with [her] right to respect for her home which the forfeiture of her lease engendered was in conformity with Article 8(2).’ The interference with the applicant’s article 8 rights brought about by the forfeiture of her lease on account of her failure to pay a service charge ‘ . . was in conformity with Art.8(2) as a measure which was in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights of others.’
A private sector landlord forfeited a long and valuable residential lease for non-payment of a relatively small amount of service charge, and the court refused the tenant relief from forfeiture owing to her refusal to apply within the statutorily prescribed time. The Commission rejected the tenant’s application, which was based on articles 6, 8, 13 and 14 and on A1P1, as manifestly ill-founded, as the Government’s Convention responsibilities were not engaged by an ‘exclusively private law relationship between the parties’
The fact that a domestic court made the orders granting forfeiture and refusing relief made no difference, as the court ‘merely provided a forum for the determination of the civil right in dispute between the parties’.
(1986) 10 EHRR 149, 11949/86, [1986] ECHR 19
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 1 8
Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedLondon 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 . .
CitedKay 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 . .
CitedManchester City Council v Pinnock SC 9-Feb-2011
The council tenant had wished to appeal following a possession order made after her tenancy had been demoted. The court handed down a supplemental judgment to give effect to its earlier decision. The Court had been asked ‘whether article 8 of the . . .
CitedSims v Dacorum Borough Council SC 12-Nov-2014
Surrender at Common Law Survives Human Rights Law
The tenants held a secure weekly tenancy of the respondent under a joint tenancy. After a relationship breakdown, Mrs Sims had given notice to quit. Mr Sims, left in possession now argued that the common law rules should not be allowed to deprive . .
CitedMcDonald v McDonald and Others SC 15-Jun-2016
Her parents had bought a house and granted tenancies to their adult daughter (the appellant), who suffered a personality disorder. They became unable to repay the mortgage. Receivers were appointed but the appellant fell into arrears with the rent. . .
CitedWatts v Stewart and Others CA 8-Dec-2016
The court considered the status of residents of almshouses, and in particular whether they were licensees or tenants with associated security.
Held: The occupier’s appeal failed: ‘We do not accept the proposition that, if and insofar as Mrs . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 January 2021; Ref: scu.185438