000			01869cab a2200217 4500
001			##L133439
008			060508n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u133439
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aKay and others and another v London Borough of Lambeth and others _bLeeds City Council v Price and others and others
260			_c2006
520			_a[2006] UKHL 10, 8 March 2006. Considers whether the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art 8 provides tenants with a defence against actions for possession by their landlords or not. Appeal by K and P against the decisions ([2004] EWCA Civ 926, Abs68045 and [2005] EWCA Civ 289, L129258) that Art 8 did not provide them with a defence against possession actions by LA and LE. "Held": in the first case that the tenancies were not derivative estates and any rights enjoyed by K have never been enforceable against LA. The decision in "Harrow LBC V Qazi" ([2003] UKHL 43, Abs67176) that the enforcement of a right to possession in accordance with the domestic law of property could never be incompatible with Art 8 had to be modified in the light of "Connors v United Kingdom" ([2004] 40 EHRR 189, unreported). Three of the seven judges dissented on the issue of the circumstances where Art 8 had to be considered and were of the opinion that only in highly exceptional circumstances might an occupier be able to raise a serious case on the basis of personal circumstances that a possession order would be in breach of Art 8.
590			_aIKA090506
650	2	4	_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
650			_aCONNORS V UNITED KINGDOM
650			_aHARROW LBC V QAZI
650			_aKAY AND OTHERS V LAMBETH LBC AND ANOTHER
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT
942			_n0
999			_c77006 _d77006