Image from Google Jackets

Michalak v Wandsworth LBC

Series: Weekly Law Reports ; [2003] 1 WLR 617-643(26)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2002] EWCA Civil 271, 6 March 2002. Respondent (M) appealed against a county court order that he give up possession of a flat to the claimant council (W). The flat was originally let to a secure tenant L, a distant relative of M. M continued to live there after L's death and claimed entitlement to possession on the grounds (1) he was a member of L's family for the purposes of the Housing Act 1985 ss87 and 113 or (2) given that s113 of the 1985 Act prevented him from qualifying as a member of L's family, his exclusion was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights Arts 8 and 14. "Held" appeal dismissed. S113 of the 1985 Act provides an exhaustive list of qualifying family members and M clearly was not one. Parliament did not wish to extend the privilege of possession to distant relatives. M had not been discriminated against in the manner prohibited by Art 14 of the Convention and the possession order was justified by the statutory scheme and not incompatible with the Convention. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk .
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS66541 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 121784-1001

[2002] EWCA Civil 271, 6 March 2002. Respondent (M) appealed against a county court order that he give up possession of a flat to the claimant council (W). The flat was originally let to a secure tenant L, a distant relative of M. M continued to live there after L's death and claimed entitlement to possession on the grounds (1) he was a member of L's family for the purposes of the Housing Act 1985 ss87 and 113 or (2) given that s113 of the 1985 Act prevented him from qualifying as a member of L's family, his exclusion was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights Arts 8 and 14. "Held" appeal dismissed. S113 of the 1985 Act provides an exhaustive list of qualifying family members and M clearly was not one. Parliament did not wish to extend the privilege of possession to distant relatives. M had not been discriminated against in the manner prohibited by Art 14 of the Convention and the possession order was justified by the statutory scheme and not incompatible with the Convention. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk .