FreeLegalWeb

This appeal concerns the question of whether article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“article 8”) requires UK courts to consider the proportionality of evicting an occupier from his home in claims for possession by local authorities and, if so, whether the demoted tenancy regime in the Housing Acts 1985 and 1996 (the “1985 Act” and “1996 Act” respectively) can properly be interpreted so as to comply with the requirements of article 8. Mr Pinnock’s main contention is that the possession order violates his right to respect for his home under article 8 as it is disproportionate. In view of the previous line of the House of Lords authorities, both the Manchester County Court and the Court of Appeal rejected Mr Pinnock’s article 8 arguments on the basis that it was not open to them to review the Council’s decision on the ground that it was disproportionate. Approaching the matter on a domestic law basis, both courts concluded that the Council’s decision to seek possession was rational. In a judgment of the Court delivered by Lord Neuberger, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal (but for different reasons from those of the County Court and the Court of Appeal).