000			01776cam a2200301 4500
001			ABS67750
008			040505n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u126095
100			_aMurdoch, S.
245			_aUnlawful occupiers
260			_c2004
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0417) 24 April 2004, 127(1)
520			_aLooks at two cases referring to the European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 as a defence against landlords seeking possession of premises. In "Harrow LBC v Qazi" ([2003] UKHL 43, Abs67176), HL ruled that Art 8 confers a right to respect for one's home but not a right to a home and is no defence against possession under ordinary law. This has been important in those cases where landlords have an absolute right to possession. The recent CA case, Newham LBC v Kibata ([2003] EWCA Civ 1785; [2004] 15 EG 106, Abs...) judged that Art 8 is not infringed where a landlord has an unqualified right to retain possession save where following the landlord's service of a notice to quit, exceptional circumstances arise that affect the rights and wrongs of the proposed eviction, a precedent made clear by HL in "Qazi".
590			_aABS
590			_aABS
650			_aFAMILY LAW ACT 1996
650			_aPRIVATE LANDLORDS
650			_aNOTICE TO QUIT
650			_aTRESPASS
650			_aRIGHT TO POSSESSION
650			_aHARROW LBC V QAZI
650			_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6
650			_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
650			_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 14
650			_aNEWHAM LBC V KIBATA
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c117289 _d117289