Annette Cafferkey reflects on the Pinnock effect
The question which has troubled the domestic courts for more than the last decade is the extent to which Art 8 can be taken into account when deciding a possession claim, particularly where the landlord otherwise has an absolute entitlement to possession and the tenant no other defence to the claim. The answer delivered by the Supreme Court this month in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2010] All ER (D) 42 (Nov) has been arrived at incrementally, dependant upon the development of domestic and European jurisprudence. Before detailing the legal issues that were decided it is worth summarising the facts of the case and detailing the nature of the possession claim involved.
Pinnock: the facts
The defendant was granted a tenancy of a house by the authority in 1978. He lived there with his partner and, as time went by, with all or some of their five children. In March 2005 the authority issued a claim for possession or, in the alternative,
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
