header-logo header-logo

07 October 2010 / Lindsay Johnson
Issue: 7436 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights , Housing
printer mail-detail

An ongoing saga

Lindsay Johnson provides an update on the ongoing saga of public law defences to possession claims

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Kay v United Kingdom (App No 37341/06), delivered last month, is the latest contribution to the ongoing dialogue between the European and domestic courts as to the applicability and impact of Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) in possession claims.

It is not the last word and it does not resolve the conflict in domestic law as to exactly how Art 8 operates in possession proceedings. It does, however, provide interesting comment on the scope of conventional public law challenges and the degree of scrutiny to which administrative decisions to seek possession should be subjected.

To that extent, it is not only a decision which impacts on the narrow field of housing, but also contributes to the debate on the scope of judicial review remedies which includes: R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll