Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2008] EWCA Civ 196, 19 March 2008. Considers the effect of the Housing Act 1985 section 85 upon the position of entrenched tolerated trespassers. The appellant (P) appealed against a decision in favour of a possession order applied for by his landlord (S). S had obtained the order some years previously. P's secure tenancy was ended, but the order was suspended while P paid off rent arrears, which he succeeded in doing. S applied for execution of the order. P argued that the court should follow a different case precedent to the one favoured by the previous judge. He requested a retrospective extension of time for the payment of rent arrears. P also argued that the court's actions had breached his human rights. "Held": The precedent followed was more relevant to this case and the arguments more persuasive. The court did not have the power to amend the order retrospectively when there had been no misinterpretation at the time it was made. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was very limited regarding the relationship between landlord and tenant. Appeal dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 143511-1001 |
[2008] EWCA Civ 196, 19 March 2008. Considers the effect of the Housing Act 1985 section 85 upon the position of entrenched tolerated trespassers. The appellant (P) appealed against a decision in favour of a possession order applied for by his landlord (S). S had obtained the order some years previously. P's secure tenancy was ended, but the order was suspended while P paid off rent arrears, which he succeeded in doing. S applied for execution of the order. P argued that the court should follow a different case precedent to the one favoured by the previous judge. He requested a retrospective extension of time for the payment of rent arrears. P also argued that the court's actions had breached his human rights. "Held": The precedent followed was more relevant to this case and the arguments more persuasive. The court did not have the power to amend the order retrospectively when there had been no misinterpretation at the time it was made. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was very limited regarding the relationship between landlord and tenant. Appeal dismissed.