Newham LBC v Kibata
Series: Estates Gazette ; [2004] 15 EG 106Publication details: 2004Subject(s):- 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
- LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES-CASE LAW
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS67749 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 126103-1001 |
[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.