Sims v Dacorum BC [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2014Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2014] UKSC 63, 12 November 2014 Appellant S's wife who held a joint tenancy with her husband served a notice to quit on landlord D who following "Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk" [1992] AC 478 held that the tenancy had come to an end and S who occupied the property must leave. S appealed on the grounds that his rights for respect for his home under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and/or peacefully to enjoy his possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention (AiP1) would be infringed. S's claims failed. Appeal "dismissed".| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 158321-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Online Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | |||
| ONLINE PUBLICAITON Hot-desking [electronic resource] What does it mean for facility managers? | ONLINE PUBLICAITON Managing diversity and inclusion in the real estate sector [electronic resource] | ONLINE PUBLICATION Global office forecast 2013-14 [electronic resource] | ONLINE PUBLICATION Sims v Dacorum BC [electronic resource] | ONLINE PUBLICATION City of London unitary development plan | ONLINE PUBLICATION London 2012 [electronic resource] a global showcase for UK plc | ONLINE PUBLICATION Understanding supply constraints in the housing market [electronic resource] Final report |
[2014] UKSC 63, 12 November 2014 Appellant S's wife who held a joint tenancy with her husband served a notice to quit on landlord D who following "Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk" [1992] AC 478 held that the tenancy had come to an end and S who occupied the property must leave. S appealed on the grounds that his rights for respect for his home under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and/or peacefully to enjoy his possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention (AiP1) would be infringed. S's claims failed. Appeal "dismissed".