[2003] UKHL 43, 9 June 2003. Appeal by Harrow LB (H) against CA ([2001] EWCA Civ 1834, [2002] PLSCS 145) decision in favour of defendant (Q), holding that European Convention on Human Rights Art.8 was engaged even though Q's tenancy had been terminated. Q and his then wife were joint tenants. After his wife left him and quit the tenancy in 1999, application for sole tenancy was refused, as he was not entitled to family-sized accommodation. At the time H commenced possession proceedings, Q was still living in the flat with another woman and her child. Q's human rights defence was rejected on the basis that the flat was not his home in that he had no legal or equitable right or interest in the flat. CA reversed this decision. HL itself allowed H leave to appeal CA's decision. Held", appeal allowed: (1) At the time possession was ordered, Q's flat was his home within the meaning of Convention art 8, namely that a home was where a person lived (for eight years in Q's case), although Q's tenancy had expired by operation of law. Art 8 does not give a right to a home, only a right to respect for a person's home as an aspect of his right to privacy.(2) By three to two majority, contractual and proprietary rights could not be defeated by defences based on art.8. The possession order would be restored. View judgment at www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk.