Monk, ECHR and Article 8

Dixon v UK has now reached a conclusion in the ECHR with an Order made on 21/2/12 removing the case from the lists under Art 37 (1)(c) of the Convention.

This Order is the Court’s response to a unilateral declaration made by the UK government on 8/11/11 accepting that Mr Dixon had not had the benefit of a proportionality exercise in line with the principles set out in McCann, Pinnock and Powell and that the High Court’s obiter findings on proportionality were insufficient to guarantee Mr Dixon’s Article 8 rights. The UK therefore offered £3000 by way of just satisfaction, costs and expenses.

Despite Mr Dixon’s argument that had Art 8 been applied to his case in a substantive sense, no possession order would have been made, the Court found the offer of compensation to be in line with its findings in previous cases dealing with Article 8 and proportionality and it declared continuation of the application to be unjustified.

To my knowledge, there are no other applications pending in the ECHR on the issue of the compatibility of the Hammersmith v Monk rule with Article 8 but we will remain alert for the next case in the domestic courts.


SJM is partner and head of the housing and public law department at Miles and Partners LLP, based in London E1.


  1. The.Dark.One

    So does the admission by the Government make it inevitable that the next court challenge to Monk will be successful?

    • SJM

      I doubt it. The most the admission will do is to help set a framework for Court procedure in dealing with proportionality defences.


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.