Smart v Sheffield City Council: Central Sunderland Housing Company Limited v Wilson: CA 25 Jan 2002

Each tenant had become unintentionally homeless, and was granted a non-secure tenancy of accommodation under section 193. Complaints of nuisance were received from neighbours. Possession orders were obtained and now challenged under the Human Rights Act. The service of the original notice to quit, engaged the Human Rights Act, but the action taken was lawful and proportionate. So far as such non-secure tenancies were concerned, the judge was not obliged to grant possession, but had a discretion.
Held: The homes were to be treated as such despite any lack of security. Nevertheless, the balance of interests under Article 8(2) was properly struck. There are some statutory regimes under which the balance of interests arising under Article 8(2) has in all its essentials been struck by the legislature and under which a court, before ordering a defendant to give up possession of accommodation where he has been living, is not obliged to adjudicate upon the specific merits of coercive action in an individual case. The word ‘engaged’ is not part of the vocabulary of human rights law.
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Laws, And, Lord Justice Kay
Times 20-Feb-2002, Gazette 15-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 4, [2002] LGR 467, [2002] HLR 639
Bailii
Housing Act 1996 193, Housing Act 1985 21(1), European Convention on Human Rights 8.2
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWrexham County Borough Council v Berry; South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and another; Chichester District Council v Searle and others HL 22-May-2003
The appellants challenged the refusal to grant them injunctions to prevent Roma parking caravans on land they had purchased.
Held: Parliament had given to local authorities exclusive jurisdiction on matters of planning policy, but when an . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedPrice and others v Leeds City Council CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant gypsies had moved their caravans onto land belonging to the respondents without planning permission. They appealed an order to leave saying that the order infringed their rights to respect for family life.
Held: There had been . .
CitedNadine Delson v London Borough of Lambeth CA 19-Nov-2002
Application for permission to appeal against refusal of second application for permission to apply for judicial review.
Held: It was not sustainable to suggest that the section was incompatible with the cliamant’s human rights. Leave to appeal . .
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 . .
CitedMcGlynn 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 . .
CitedL, Regina (On the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis SC 29-Oct-2009
The Court was asked as to the practice of supplying enhanced criminal record certificates under the 1997 Act. It was said that the release of reports of suspicions was a disproportionate interference in the claimants article 8 rights to a private . .
CitedSalford City Council v Mullen CA 30-Mar-2010
The court considered the status of decisions to commence proceedings for possession by local authorities against tenants not protected under any statutory scheme. The tenants, on introductory tenancies and under the homelessness regime, argued that . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 January 2021; Ref: scu.167526