Image from Google Jackets

London and Quadrant Housing Trust v R. on the application of Weaver and Equality and Human Rights Commission [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2009Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2009] EWCA Civ 587, 18 June 2009. The case considers whether the termination of a tenancy by a housing trust did not constitute an act of private nature under the Human Rights Act 1998 s.6(5) and was subject to human rights considerations. London and Quadrant Housing Trust (L) appealed against a decision that it was subject to human rights principles when terminating Ms Weaver's tenancy (W). L was a registered social landlord with corporate and charitable status. W received an order for possession for rent arrears. She sought judicial review on the basis that her human rights were not respected. She considered that the act was not of a private nature. "Held": L was a hybrid public authority and providing a public service. Terminating W's tenancy was a private act and was in principle subject to human rights considerations. Every housing trust providing social housing would not necessarily be in the same position as L's. Determining the public status of a body is dependent on the facts. The appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal to Supreme Court refused.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE JUDGMENT (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 147874-2001

[2009] EWCA Civ 587, 18 June 2009. The case considers whether the termination of a tenancy by a housing trust did not constitute an act of private nature under the Human Rights Act 1998 s.6(5) and was subject to human rights considerations. London and Quadrant Housing Trust (L) appealed against a decision that it was subject to human rights principles when terminating Ms Weaver's tenancy (W). L was a registered social landlord with corporate and charitable status. W received an order for possession for rent arrears. She sought judicial review on the basis that her human rights were not respected. She considered that the act was not of a private nature. "Held": L was a hybrid public authority and providing a public service. Terminating W's tenancy was a private act and was in principle subject to human rights considerations. Every housing trust providing social housing would not necessarily be in the same position as L's. Determining the public status of a body is dependent on the facts. The appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal to Supreme Court refused.