Eviction in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Manchester City Council v Pinnock (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervening)
    • Supreme Court
    • 03 Nov 2010

    It will also, at least normally, be supported by the fact that it would enable the authority to comply with its duties in relation to the distribution and management of its housing stock, including, for example, the fair allocation of its housing, the redevelopment of the site, the refurbishing of sub-standard accommodation, the need to move people who are in accommodation that now exceeds their needs, and the need to move vulnerable people into sheltered or warden-assisted housing.

  • Sheffield City Council v Smart; Central Sunderland Housing Company Ltd v Wilson
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 25 Ene 2002

    I have held that eviction of these appellants would constitute a prima facie violation of their right to respect for their homes. The court has to arrive at a judicial choice between two possibilities, a choice which transcends the business of finding out what the legislation's words mean.

    I can see also that at the stage of the trial of the possession proceedings, there might be the rare case where something wholly exceptional has happened since service of the notice to quit, which fundamentally alters the rights and wrongs of the proposed eviction; and the county judge might be obliged to address it in deciding whether or not to make an order for possession.

  • R (McLellan) v Bracknell Forest Borough Council; Reigate and Banstead Borough Council v Benfield and another
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 16 Oct 2001

    It is not a preliminary question whether the tenancy has been properly terminated in accordance with its terms. It is under Article 8(2) that the question to be considered is whether an eviction was in accordance with the law, and whether it was necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

  • Lambeth London Borough Council v Howard
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 06 Mar 2001

    A legal threat to a secure home will, in the ordinary way, engage Article 8.1. In situations where the law affords an unqualified right to possession on proof of entitlement, it may be that Article 8.2 is met, but that is not the present class of case and nothing in this judgment should be taken as impinging on it.

  • Harrow London Borough Council v Qazi
    • House of Lords
    • 31 Jul 2003

    The premises were Mr Qazi's home, and evicting him would obviously amount to an interference with his enjoyment of the premises as his home. But his right to occupy them as such was circumscribed by the terms of his tenancy and had come to an end. Its obligation to "respect" Mr Qazi's home was not infringed by its requirement that he vacate the premises at the expiry of the period during which it had agreed that he might occupy them.

  • Kay v Lambeth City Council; Leeds City Council v Price
    • House of Lords
    • 08 Mar 2006

    But if the requirements of the law have been established and the right to recover possession is unqualified, the only situations in which it would be open to the court to refrain from proceeding to summary judgment and making the possession order are these: (a) if a seriously arguable point is raised that the law which enables the court to make the possession order is incompatible with article 8, the county court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the Human Rights Act 1998 should deal with the argument in one or other of two ways: (i) by giving effect to the law, so far as it is possible for it do so under section 3, in a way that is compatible with article 8, or (ii) by adjourning the proceedings to enable the compatibility issue to be dealt with in the High Court; (b) if the defendant wishes to challenge the decision of a public authority to recover possession as an improper exercise of its powers at common law on the ground that it was a decision that no reasonable person would consider justifiable, he should be permitted to do this provided again that the point is seriously arguable: Wandsworth London Borough Council v Winder [1985] AC 461.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT