000			01514cab a2200229 4500
001			##L133442
008			060508n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u133442
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aThompson-Copsey, Sarah
245	0	0	_aHabeas domus
260			_c2006
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0617) 29 April 2006, 104-105(2)
520			_aExamines the judgment in"Kay and others v Lambeth LBC and another" ([2006] UKHL 10, L133439) which concludes that the European Convention of Human Rights Art 8 can be used as a defence to local authority possession proceedings but such defences are unlikely to succeed and that courts should follow domestic precedent even in the face of apparently inconsistent later European court decisions. Reviews the decisions in "Poplar Housing Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue" ([2001 EWCA Civ 595, Abs 64290], "Harrow LBC v Qazi" ([2003] UKHL 43, Abs67176) and "Connors v United Kingdom" ([2004] 40 EHRR 189, unreported) which left the defence position uncertain. Considers the human rights and jurisdictional issues and assesses the effect of the HL ruling on public authority landlords.
650	2	4	_aKAY AND OTHERS V LAMBETH LBC AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aCONNORS V UNITED KINGDOM
650	2	4	_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
650	2	4	_aHARROW LBC V QAZI
650	2	4	_aPOPLAR HOUSING V DONOGHUE
690			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT
942			_n0
999			_c77008 _d77008