HUMAN RIGHTS AND PROPERTY - CASES 1.

Harrow London BC v Qazi (2003) (HL): Where LL has an undisputed contractual + proprietary right to recover possession, it cannot be defeated by a defence based on Art 8. i. Facts: Freehold ownersof house let it to D + his wife as JTs. W left D at expiry of notice, D applied for sole tenancy but housing authority refused his app on grd that as a single person he was not entitled to family-sized accom requested D to vacate premises. D did not vacate remarried + continued to live with his new wife + family. D sought to resist order for possession by relying on Art 8 ECHR. 1st instance: C won Judge said that the house was not his home within the meaning of Art 8(1) No q arose under Art 8(2) of justifying interference w/ that right. CA: Reversed 1st instance decision. ii. Held: C won Reversed CA decision. Definition of home under Art 8(1): An autonomous concept. Bears an ordinary + natural meaning: the place where a person lived. Question of fact: Depended on whether he had sufficient + continuous links with it, not on whether his occupation was lawful. On facts, D had established sufficient + continuous links house was his home, Art 8(1) was satisfied. Art 8 cannot be relied on to defeat proprietary/contractual rights to possession. Housing authority has an unqualified right to immediate possession once service of notice to quit terminated the JT no infringement of Ds right under Art 8 to respect for his home, no question arose under Art 8(2). Lord Scott: Art 8 defence can never prevail against an owner entitled under the ordinary law to possession. Lord Bingham (dissenting): Issue of justification should be considered by the county court. Housing authorities acting in good faith in implementation of schemes prescribed by statute and administered by them need to apprehend no significant increase in their litigious burden. 2. Cf: Connors v UK (2004) (ECtHR): Eviction of a gypsy family violated their Art 8 rights even though they had no contractual or proprietary right to remain. 3. Kay v Lambeth i. Facts: 3 stages

 Lambeth owned property that it wished to redevelop. Pending pressing ahead with the redevelopment scheme, it granted a licence to LQHT to use the property as short life housing. LQHT then granted licence to some occupiers. 1 LQHT had a licence from Lambeth and the occupiers (incl Kay) also possessed licences. 2 Lambeth granted a 10-yr lease to LQHT with 6-month notice provision. (Decision in Bruton v London: Occupiers interests were in fact tenancies, not licences). 3 Lambeth served notice under lease to LQHT, to expire in 2000. One of the occupiers claimed to be a secure tenant. Lambeth issued possession proceedings against occupiers and counterclaimed for possession against the one claiming to be secure tenant. Issue in HR: Whether or not the trial judge had been correct to strike out the defence based on HR arguments in light of Qazi. ii. 2 issues: Did the occupiers have any proprietary rights against Lambeth? Could the occupiers resist possession on grounds that it involved an interference with the right to a home? iii. Held: The defence in HR failed. Connors v UK was restricted to cases involving gypsies. Occupiers were not tenants and had no contractual/proprietary right to remain. Nothing had been pleaded to support Art 8(2) defence. 4. Leeds CC v Price (2005) (HL)2 i. Facts: Involved a gypsy family (Maloneys) who moved into councils recreation ground. Council brought possession proceedings against them Some of the Maloney family was suffering from ill-health, which was worsened by the fact that the family had been evicted/forced to move under threat of eviction for over 50 times over the past 12 months. D familys argument: Council had failed to make adequate provision for gypsies in breach of both statutory obligations and government guidance. Not disputed that Ds had not any lawful right to enter onto the ground, but claimed that evicting them breached their Art 8 rights. Emphasis of legal focus: Apparent contradiction between outcomes in Qazi and Connors. ii. Held:

 Connors v UK was not simply an exception to the general rule propounded by the majority in Qazi but was incompatible with it. Should CA follow HLs decision or should it follow Connors case? o CA felt bound to follow Qazi (HL decision), but gave HL permission to appeal. The recreation site had never become home unable to show continuous links with land (only on land for 2 days). 5. James v UK (1986) (ECtHR) i. Facts: TEEs of a substantial estate (Applicants) under will had been deprived of their ownership of some properties which were formerly part of the estate through exercise of those tenants of rights of acquisition conferred by Leasehold Reform Act 1967. Applicants said that the compulsory transfer of these properties and calculation of price received was breach of Art 1 of Protocol 1. ii. Held: No breach of any of the Articles in the Covenant. Leasehold reform leg is not ipso facto an infringement of Art 1 of Protocol 1. o Compulsory transfer of property may constitute a legitimate means for promoting the public interest. o A taking of property effected in pursuance of legitimate social, economic or other policies may be in public interest even though the community at large has no direct use/enjoyment of the property taken. o Court respect national legs judgment on what is in public interest when implementing social + econ policies unless judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation. o Has to be proportionate, but does not need to meet a test of strict necessity. - Legitimate objectives of public interest may call for reimbursement at less than full market value. o The general principles of intl law were not applicable to the taking by the State of the property of its own nationals. 6. Connors v UK i. 3 special factors identified by Lord Scott: Discriminatory treatment of travellers. States have a +ve obligation to facilitate the gypsy way of life. Importance of procedural safeguards.

Art 8 in HL: Kay v Lambeth LBC; Leeds CC v Price When can Art 8(2) defence be raised? 1. A possession action involves an interference with the home under Art 8. 2. A local authority bringing a possession action does not have to prove justification in every case. 3. Where the occupier has no contractual or proprietary right to remain, an Art 8(2) defence will not succeed in the vast majority of cases. 4. Allow an occupier tin any case to raise a defence based on Art 8(2), although it will only be highly exceptional (Lord Bingham) or exceedingly rare (Lord Nicholls) cases that the interference will not be justified. Notice to quit route Often results in no consideration being given to the circumstances of the remaining occupier.