Kay and others and another v London Borough of Lambeth and others Leeds City Council v Price and others and others
Kay and others and another v London Borough of Lambeth and others Leeds City Council v Price and others and others
- 2006
[2006] UKHL 10, 8 March 2006. Considers whether the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art 8 provides tenants with a defence against actions for possession by their landlords or not. Appeal by K and P against the decisions ([2004] EWCA Civ 926, Abs68045 and [2005] EWCA Civ 289, L129258) that Art 8 did not provide them with a defence against possession actions by LA and LE. "Held": in the first case that the tenancies were not derivative estates and any rights enjoyed by K have never been enforceable against LA. The decision in "Harrow LBC V Qazi" ([2003] UKHL 43, Abs67176) that the enforcement of a right to possession in accordance with the domestic law of property could never be incompatible with Art 8 had to be modified in the light of "Connors v United Kingdom" ([2004] 40 EHRR 189, unreported). Three of the seven judges dissented on the issue of the circumstances where Art 8 had to be considered and were of the opinion that only in highly exceptional circumstances might an occupier be able to raise a serious case on the basis of personal circumstances that a possession order would be in breach of Art 8.
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
CONNORS V UNITED KINGDOM
HARROW LBC V QAZI
KAY AND OTHERS V LAMBETH LBC AND ANOTHER
England and Wales--1543-
[2006] UKHL 10, 8 March 2006. Considers whether the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art 8 provides tenants with a defence against actions for possession by their landlords or not. Appeal by K and P against the decisions ([2004] EWCA Civ 926, Abs68045 and [2005] EWCA Civ 289, L129258) that Art 8 did not provide them with a defence against possession actions by LA and LE. "Held": in the first case that the tenancies were not derivative estates and any rights enjoyed by K have never been enforceable against LA. The decision in "Harrow LBC V Qazi" ([2003] UKHL 43, Abs67176) that the enforcement of a right to possession in accordance with the domestic law of property could never be incompatible with Art 8 had to be modified in the light of "Connors v United Kingdom" ([2004] 40 EHRR 189, unreported). Three of the seven judges dissented on the issue of the circumstances where Art 8 had to be considered and were of the opinion that only in highly exceptional circumstances might an occupier be able to raise a serious case on the basis of personal circumstances that a possession order would be in breach of Art 8.
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
CONNORS V UNITED KINGDOM
HARROW LBC V QAZI
KAY AND OTHERS V LAMBETH LBC AND ANOTHER
England and Wales--1543-