Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Allocation
ASB
Assured Shorthold tenancy
assured-tenancy
Benefits and care
Deposits
Disrepair
Homeless
Housing Conditions
Housing law - All
Introductory and Demoted tenancies
Leasehold and shared ownership
Licences and occupiers
Mortgage possession
Nuisance
Possession
Regulation and planning
right-to-buy
secure-tenancy
Succession
Trusts and Estoppel
Unlawful eviction and harassment
By J
18/07/2012

Private sector Art 8 – another one?

News reaches us here at NL towers of another private sector Art.8 case (following Khela v Dainter, our note here). Details are sketchy, but it seems that Central London County Court was dealing with a possession claim against squatters. The CJ is said to have held that Art.8 applied to the possession claim (i.e. the squatters could argue that it was their home and the eviction was disproportionate) but that, on the facts, it was proportionate to make an order. Interestingly, the CJ has given permission to appeal.

Any more news would be appreciated.

J is a barrister. He considers housing law to be the single greatest kind of law known to humankind and finds it very odd that so few people share this view.

7 Comments

  1. CJ

    Thanks to my mate and Traveller Planning Consultant, Simon Ruston, for directing me to this one concerning the ‘Grow Heathrow’ occupation. The case is Malik v Persons Unknown handed down at Central London County Court this morning (and also given leave to appeal though I am guessing there may be funding issues). I will e-mail what I have (which is just a draft) to NL – haven’t got the approved judgment yet

    Reply
  2. chief

    Here is a bit from the Guardian. As it’s the Grauniad it’s almost cruel to point out that there is no “t” in “Wednesday”.

    Reply
    • J

      We’ve now been provided with a copy of the judgment via Lindsay Johnson, counsel for two of the known persons unknown (if that isn’t too Rumsfeldian!). I’ll blog it properly as soon as time permits.

      Reply
    • S

      Someone might want to tell them that Art.8 does not confer a right to a home, but that might be too taxing for them.

      Reply
  3. Simon

    To be honest I can’t really see how this judgement will set a precedent but it seems quite intriguing. Would it be possible to obtain a copy of the full judgement? I haven’t had any luck tracking it down yet.

    Seems like Grow Heathrow will pursue the appeal – they’re asking for donations at their website – http://www.transitionheathrow.com/grow-heathrow/

    Reply
    • J

      It clearly doesn’t set a precedent, (at least, not a binding one; other county court judges may find it persuasive). It’s the grant of permission to appeal that opens the door to a precendent.

      Reply
  4. CJ

    Who are we telling that to, S? Presumably ‘Someone’ is you? Anyway (though not really relevant in a private landowner case!!) in extreme cases, article 8 can effectively arrive at a right to a home e.g. Guerra v Italy; Lopez Ostra v Spain.

    Reply

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.