<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Demoted Tenancies and Human Rights</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/demoted-tenancies-and-human-rights/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/demoted-tenancies-and-human-rights/</link>
	<description>The Joy of Housing Law</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:02:33 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: J</title>
		<link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/demoted-tenancies-and-human-rights/#comment-6456</link>
		<dc:creator>J</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 07:01:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/demoted-tenancies-and-human-rights/#comment-6456</guid>
		<description>It is due for hearing on the 19th or 20th May.
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/listing_calendar/search?NUMBER=20072538&#38;search=Gilboy&#38;page=0</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is due for hearing on the 19th or 20th May.<br />
<a href="http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/listing_calendar/search?NUMBER=20072538&amp;search=Gilboy&amp;page=0" rel="nofollow">http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/listing_calendar/search?NUMBER=20072538&amp;search=Gilboy&amp;page=0</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nearly Legal</title>
		<link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/demoted-tenancies-and-human-rights/#comment-6448</link>
		<dc:creator>Nearly Legal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 17:19:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/demoted-tenancies-and-human-rights/#comment-6448</guid>
		<description>Interesting. Gilboy is due at the court of appeal shortly so things may change, but I take your point on the restrictive approach. I suspect that McCann will have its application limited pretty rapidly, but that will be the topic of another post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting. Gilboy is due at the court of appeal shortly so things may change, but I take your point on the restrictive approach. I suspect that McCann will have its application limited pretty rapidly, but that will be the topic of another post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Brodie</title>
		<link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/demoted-tenancies-and-human-rights/#comment-6446</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Brodie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 15:53:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/demoted-tenancies-and-human-rights/#comment-6446</guid>
		<description>There could be some interesting parallels between this case and the current excitement over McCann v UK.  Tsfayo was expected to have far reaching consequences, but as shown in this case they didn't happen.  The English court preferred to apply its own earlier precedent despite ECtHR decision, and the circumscribed County Court oversight was felt to be enough to satisfy the Convention.  
Will this be the fate of McCann?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There could be some interesting parallels between this case and the current excitement over McCann v UK.  Tsfayo was expected to have far reaching consequences, but as shown in this case they didn&#8217;t happen.  The English court preferred to apply its own earlier precedent despite ECtHR decision, and the circumscribed County Court oversight was felt to be enough to satisfy the Convention.<br />
Will this be the fate of McCann?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
