Kay v Lambeth LBC

rdf:langString Kay v Lambeth LBC

rdf:langString Kay v Lambeth LBC

rdf:langString Homes used for social/assisted housing at low rents in Lambeth.

rdf:langString [2006] 2 465

rdf:langString [2006] 2 WLR 570

rdf:langString [2006] UKHL 10

rdf:langString Kay v Lambeth London Borough Council

rdf:langString Price and others and others v Leeds City Council

rdf:langString Lord Brown

rdf:langString Lord Scott

rdf:langString Lord Walker

rdf:langString Baroness Hale

rdf:langString Lord Bingham

rdf:langString Lord Hope

rdf:langString Lord Nicholls

rdf:langString Kay v Lambeth London Borough Council; Price and others and others v Leeds City Council [2006] were two, conjoined appeals in the final court of appeal relevant for English property law, UK human rights and English tort law (trespass). It involved claims for possession by two landlords (in each case local authorities) against former short-term occupiers, heavily placing reliance in their defence on article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with circumstances outwith the other laws. The European Court of Human Rights accorded a generous margin of appreciation to the national authorities, attaching much importance to the facts of the case. Thus, it was for the courts to decide how in the first instance the principles expounded in Strasbourg should be applied in the special context of national legislation, practice and social and other considerations. To those decisions the ordinary rules of precedent should apply.

rdf:langString All seven judges.

rdf:langString by adjourning the proceedings to enable the compatibility issue to be dealt with in the High Court;

rdf:langString by giving effect to the law, so far as it is possible for it do so under section 3, in a way that is compatible with article 8, or

rdf:langString if the defendant wishes to challenge the decision of a public authority to recover possession as an improper exercise of its powers at common law on the ground that it was a decision that no reasonable person would consider justifiable, he [can] provided again that the point is seriously arguable: Wandsworth London Borough Council v Winder [1985] AC 461. The common law as explained in that case is, of course, compatible with article 8. It provides an additional safeguard."

rdf:langString "a defence which does not challenge the law under which the possession order is sought as being incompatible with the article 8 but is based only on the occupier's personal circumstances should be struck out. Where domestic law provides for personal circumstances to be taken into account, as in a case where the statutory test is whether it would be reasonable to make a possession order, then a fair opportunity must be given for the arguments in favour of the occupier to be presented. But if the requirements of the law have been established and the right to recover possession is unqualified, the only situations in which it would be open to the court to refrain from proceeding to summary judgment and making the possession order are these:

rdf:langString Para 110 explicitly approved by four judges: McPhail v Persons, Names Unknown [1973] approved...

rdf:langString if a seriously arguable point is raised that the law which enables the court to make the possession order is incompatible with article 8...in the exercise of...jurisdiction under the Human Rights Act 1998...deal with the argument in one or other of two ways:

rdf:langString The sets of appellants, the occupiers, also failed at first instance and on appeal to the Court of Appeal