Jon Holbrook questions mandatory rights to possession that are not mandatory
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Manchester CC v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45 is as important as it is troubling. It establishes that where Parliament has created a mandatory right to possession the courts may refuse to grant possession.
Mr Pinnock’s case concerned a demoted tenancy. Under this regime eviction is a two-stage court process that begins with the court making a demotion order. Having obtained a demotion order the landlord may return to court for a possession order within the next twelve months. The regime offers the tenant substantive protections at the first stage because the demotion order can only be made if the court is satisfied that it would be reasonable to demote the tenancy. But during the second stage the tenant is offered only procedural protections, he may not raise a substantive defence.
Or at least it was Parliament’s intention that the occupier would not be able to defend the second stage with a substantive defence. This is clear from s
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
