Newham LBC v Kibata
Newham LBC v Kibata
- 2004
- Estates Gazette [2004] 15 EG 106 .
[2003] EWCA Civ 1785, 9 December 2003. Appellant council N had brought possession proceedings against respondent K as unlawful occupier of the council flat formerly resided in jointly by K and his wife, who had terminated the tenancy following domestic violence by K. N's CC application was dismissed on the ground that the interference with K's rights under the European Convention on Human rights Art 8(1) was not justified under Art 8(2). N appealed and K cross-appealed alleging breaches of his rights under Arts 8 and 14. "Held": appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed. Although the flat remained K's home within the meaning of Art 8, Art 8 was unavailable as a defence in possession proceedings: "Harrow LBC v Qazi" ([2003] UKHL 43, Abs67176) applied. Art 8 had not been infringed. The council's act in obtaining a notice to quit from K's wife was not a determination of K's civil rights within the meaning of Art 6 of the Convention. Given that the Art 8 right was unavailable to K, the prohibition on discrimination in Art 14 did not apply. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk.
RIGHT TO POSSESSION
HARROW LBC V QAZI
TRESPASS
SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL V SMART
NOTICE TO QUIT
MICHALAK V WANDSWORTH LBC
KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA LBC V O'SULLIVAN
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 14
NEWHAM LBC V KIBATA
[2003] EWCA Civ 1785, 9 December 2003. Appellant council N had brought possession proceedings against respondent K as unlawful occupier of the council flat formerly resided in jointly by K and his wife, who had terminated the tenancy following domestic violence by K. N's CC application was dismissed on the ground that the interference with K's rights under the European Convention on Human rights Art 8(1) was not justified under Art 8(2). N appealed and K cross-appealed alleging breaches of his rights under Arts 8 and 14. "Held": appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed. Although the flat remained K's home within the meaning of Art 8, Art 8 was unavailable as a defence in possession proceedings: "Harrow LBC v Qazi" ([2003] UKHL 43, Abs67176) applied. Art 8 had not been infringed. The council's act in obtaining a notice to quit from K's wife was not a determination of K's civil rights within the meaning of Art 6 of the Convention. Given that the Art 8 right was unavailable to K, the prohibition on discrimination in Art 14 did not apply. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk.
RIGHT TO POSSESSION
HARROW LBC V QAZI
TRESPASS
SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL V SMART
NOTICE TO QUIT
MICHALAK V WANDSWORTH LBC
KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA LBC V O'SULLIVAN
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 14
NEWHAM LBC V KIBATA