Any attempt to evict a person, whether directly or indirectly or by process of law, from his or her home is on the face of it a derogation from the respect to which the home is prima facie entitled. Courts should be careful fully to explain any weighing of proportionality in a human rights case where social need was used to justify interference with a right. In this case ‘the shadow of the past was too heavy’ to be ignored and prevent an outright possesion order.
Judges:
Sedley LJ
Citations:
[2001] 33 HLR 636, [2001] EWCA Civ 468
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 – Coates and others v South Buckinghamshire District Council CA 22-Oct-2004
The local authority had required the applicants to remove their mobile homes from land. They complained that the judge had failed properly to explain how he had reached his decision as to the proportionality of the pressing social need, and the . .
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v McMullen CA 9-May-2006
The defendant tenant appealed an order for possession of her flat. She was disabled and living with her 19 year old son. He had been made subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The court had found that she could have required him to leave. The . .
Cited – London and Quadrant Housing Trust v Root CA 12-Jan-2005
The tenant had a partner whom she could not control, and who had terrorised her to the nuisance also of her neighbours. The landlord sought possession, and until that was granted an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) against the partner. Before the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Housing
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185444