Kay v UK: Newsflash

The decision is here. Violation of Art. 8 in the procedural sense only. Minority in Kay approved but, so it appears, Doherty also approved. Strong hints that this is a “time limited” violation, i.e. that Doherty has solved the problem. Paras 73 and 74 are the main ones.

Full post coming later.

[Edit: link to judgment fixed, 22/09/10.]

About J

J is a barrister in London. He loves service charges and all things leasehold law related. He also likes beating rogue landlords and mortgage companies.
Posted in Housing law - All, Licences and occupiers, Possession and tagged , , , .

2 Comments

Leave a Reply (We can't offer advice on individual issues)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.