Upload
pauldavey18
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
1/16
Defending
possessionproceedings
SEVENTH EDITION (August 2010)
ONLINE UPDATE: March 2011
Jan Luba QC, John Gallagher,
Derek McConnell and Nic Madge
Legal Action Group2011
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
2/16
De
fendingpossessionproceedings7thedition:onlineupda
teMarch2011
www.lag.org.u
k/DPP7 CHAPTER 7
Introductory tenancies
Asforeshadowedbythespecialnoteonpage172oftheseventhedi-tion,theSupremeCourthasnowhadtheopportunitytoconsidertheimpactoftheHumanRightsAct1998onpossessionproceedingsbroughtagainstintroductorytenants.
InLeeds CC v HallandBirmingham CC v Frisbyitdealtwithappealsbroughtbytwointroductorytenants.TheCourtheldthatinprincipleitisopentoanintroductorytenanttoadvance:
(1)apubliclawdefencetotheclaim(ie,anassertionthatthebring-ingoftheproceedingsistheresultofunlawfuldecision-makingbythecouncillandlordseechapter25andtheupdatingnotetoitprovidedbelow);1and/or
(2)adefencerelyinguponarticle8oftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRightsthatthemakingofapossessionorderwouldnotbeproportionateonthefactsofthecase(seechapter26Humanrightsdefencesandtheupdatingnotetoitprovidedbelow).
ThetwoappealsarereportedunderthenameHounslow LBC v Powell2
(athirdcasewithwhichtheywereheard).Forthejudgments,see:http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/8.pdf
Intheevent,theCourtdecidedonthefactsthatneitherintroductorytenantintheappealsbeforethemhadaseriouslyarguabledefenceofeithertype.Thehistoryofnoisenuisanceproblemsarisingduringtheirtenanciesamplyjustiedtheirlandlordsactions.
1 ThedecisioninManchester CC v Cochrane[1999]1WLR809,(1999)31HLR180,CAtothecontraryeffectshouldnolongerbefollowedsee ManchesterCC v Pinnock [2010]UKSC45paras[82][87].
2 [2011]UKSC8,[2011]2WLR287. 1
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
3/16
De
fendingpossessionproceedings7thedition:onlineupda
teMarch2011
www.lag.org.u
k/DPP7 CHAPTER 8
Demoted tenancies
Asforeshadowedbythespecialnoteonpage189oftheseventhedi-tion,theSupremeCourthasnowhadtheopportunitytoconsidertheimpactoftheHumanRightsAct1998onpossessionproceedingsbroughtagainstdemotedtenants.
InManchester CC v Pinnock1itdealtwithanappealagainstaposses-sionorderbroughtbyademotedtenant.Itheldthatinprincipleitisopentoademotedtenanttoadvance:
(1)apubliclawdefencetotheclaim(ie,anassertionthatthebring-ingoftheproceedingsistheresultofunlawfuldecision-makingbythecouncillandlordseechapter25);and/or
(2)adefencerelyinguponarticle8oftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRightsthatthemakingofapossessionorderwouldnotbeproportionateonthefactsofthecase(seechapter26Humanrightsdefences).
Forthejudgment,see:
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/45.pdf Intheevent,onthefactstheCourtdecidedthattheevictionofMr
Pinnockwouldbeproportionategiventhelonghistoryofseriousanti-socialbehaviourassociatedwithmembersofhishousehold.
1 [2010]UKSC45,[2011]HLR7,[2011]1AllER285,[2010]3WLR1441. 2
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
4/16
De
fendingpossessionproceedings7thedition:onlineupda
teMarch2011
www.lag.org.u
k/DPP7 CHAPTER 25
Public law defences
TheRecentdevelopmentssectionattheendofthischapter(paras25.3625.38)agged-uppendingcasesintheSupremeCourtwhichwere expected to consider further the availability of public lawdefencesinpossessionproceedings.
In therstof thosecases,Manchester CC v Pinnock,1 theSupremeCourtdecided that apublic law defence is available in thecountycourt evenwhere the statutory jurisdiction of that court seems tobelimitedtocheckingwhethertheproceduralrequirementsforthemakingofapossessionorderaresatised.2
ThejudgmentcontainsausefulsummaryofthemostrecentHouseofLordscasesontheavailabilityofthepubliclawdefence(orthejudicialreviewdefence).LordNeubergersaidat[27][28]:
[InKay v Lambeth LBC[2006]2AC465atpara110]LordHopeex-plainedthat,followingWandsworth London Borough Council v Winder[1985]AC461,inprinciple,itwouldbeopentoadefendanttochal-lengethedecisionofalocalauthoritytorecoverpossessionasanim-properexerciseofitspowersatcommonlawonthetraditionaljudi-cialreviewgroundthatitwasadecisionthatnoreasonablepersonwouldconsiderjustiable.
InDoherty v BirminghamCC[2009]1AC367thelawasstatedinpara110ofKaywassubstantiallyreafrmed...Thelawonthejudicialre-viewpointwasafrmedbyLordHope,LordWalker,andLordMance,atparas56,123and157respectively.
1 [2010]UKSC45,[2011]HLR7,[2011]1AllER285,[210]3WLR1441.
2 ThedecisioninManchester CC v Cochrane[1999]1WLR809,(1999)31HLR180,CAtothecontraryeffectshouldnolongerbefollowedsee ManchesterCC v Pinnock paras[82][87]. 3
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
5/16
De
fendingpossessionproceedings7thedition:onlineupda
teMarch2011
www.lag.org.u
k/DPP7 Thejudgmentlaterrestatesthelawontheavailabilityofpubliclaw
defencesinthesetermsat[81]:
whereatenantcontendsthatthedecisionofalocalauthoritylandlordtoissue,orindeedtocontinue,possessionproceedingscaninsome
waybeimpugned,thetenantshouldbeentitledtoraisethatconten-tioninthepossessionproceedingsthemselves,eveniftheyareintheCountyCourt.Thisseems tous tofollowfromthedecisionof theHouseofLordsinWandsworth v Winder[1985]AC461,ascitedandapprovedinthepresentcontextinKay v Lambeth [2006]2AC465,para110,andagaininDoherty v Birmingham[2009]1AC367,paras56,123and157(seepara28above).Thisapproachalsoderivesstrongsupport from the observations of LordBinghaminKay v Lambeth[2006]2AC465,para30.
Theseprinciplesmustnowberegardedaswellsettled.Where theclaimant for possession is a body whichwould be amenable to ajudicialreviewofitsdecision-makingintheAdministrativeCourt,thedefendanttoapossessionclaimcaninprincipledeployapubliclawdefenceinthecountycourt.Whethersuchadefenceisinprac-ticeavailablewilldependonthefactsofthecase.
InPinnock,theclaimforpossessionwasbroughtagainstademoted3tenant.Thetenanthadreceivednoticeofintentiontoseekposses-
sionandanoralhearingbyaPanelofcouncilofcersofanapplica-tionforareviewofthatdecision.LordNeubergersaidat[72]:
Rightly,inourview,itiscommongroundthatacourthasjurisdic-tion,undernormaljudicialreviewprinciples,tosatisfyitselfthatthelocalauthorityandPanelhaveindeedactedreasonablyandhavein-vestigatedtherelevantfactsfairly,whendecidingtobringpossessionproceedings.Fromthisitmustfollowthatanydecisionbythelocalauthoritytocontinuepossessionproceedingsissimilarlysusceptibletojudicialreview.Atthesametime,itisrighttoemphasisethatitwouldalmostalwaysrequireamarkedchangeofcircumstancesfol -lowingaPanelsdecisiontoapprovetheproceedings,beforeanat-temptcouldproperlybemadetojudiciallyreviewthecontinuanceofproceedingswhichwereinitiallyjustied.
InamorerecentgroupofSupremeCourtcases,reportedunderthenameHounslow LBC v Powell,4theSupremeCourtadditionallyde-cidedthat:
(1)thedecisiontocommencepossessionproceedingswasoneinre-spectofwhichreasonsshouldnormallybeprovidedtotheprospective
3 Seechapter8.
4 [2011]UKSC8,[2011]2WLR287.
chapter 25 / Public law defences
4
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
6/16
De
fendingpossessionproceedings7thedition:onlineupda
teMarch2011
www.lag.org.u
k/DPP7 defendant,notlaterthanthepointintimeatwhichatenantwould
needtoframetheirdefence; 5and
(2)apubliclawdefenceinthecountycourtcouldnotonlychallengethedecisiontobringtheproceedingsbutalsoanypriordecisionon
whichthepossessionclaimwasfoundede.g.thedecisiontoserveanoticetoquit.6
Ofthevariousquestionsaboutthescopeofpubliclawdefenceslistedinchapter25(atpages446447)thesecasesdirectlyanswerques-tions(2)and(4).ThoseanswersarerespectivelyYesandNo.
Theserecentcasesemphasiseapointattheheartofchapter25thatthepubliclawdefenceisaboutchallengingthedecision-makingbytheclaimantatanyofthestagesuptoandincludingthedecisionto
presstheclaimatatrial.Ithasnothingtodowithanevaluationbythecourtofthefactualcircumstancesoftheclaim.Thatsortofevalu-ationwillbeundertakeneitheraspartofthecourtsconsiderationofreasonableness(ifthetenanthasfullsecurityoftenure)orinthecourseofdeterminingaproportionalitydefenceasdiscussedinchap-ter26(wheretheoccupierdoesnotenjoyfullsecurityoftenure).
5 PerLordPhillipsat[114][117].
6 PerLordPhillipsat[120].
chapter 25 / Public law defences
5
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
7/16
CHAPTER 26
Human rights defences
TheRecentdevelopmentssectionattheendofthischapter(paras26.4726.51)intheseventhedition,agged-uppendingcasesintheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights(ECtHR)andintheSupremeCourtwhichwereexpectedtoconsiderfurthertheavailabilityofhumanrightsdefencesinpossessionproceedings.Decisionsinthosecasesarenowavailable.Theydonotrelatetowhatissaidinthischapteratparagraphs26.2826.32aboutdefenceswhichchallengethelawunderlyingapossessionclaim.Rathertheyareconcernedwiththe
discussionatparagraphs26.3326.45aboutdefencesbasedontheparticularfactsofacase.Collectively,theyafrmthatahumanrightsdefenceisinprincipleavailableinthepossessionproceedings.
Atthetimethattheoriginalchapter26oftheseventheditionwasdraftedthedecisionoftheECtHRinKay v UKwasawaited(seepara-graph26.45). That decisionhas now beendelivered.1TheECtHRwelcomedtheincreasingtendencyofthedomesticcourtstodevelopandexpandconventionaljudicialreviewgroundsinthelightofart-
icle8.ItnotedthatinBirmingham CC v Doherty,2
theHouseofLordshadreferredtothepossibilityofchallengesonconventionaljudicialreviewgroundsencompassingmorethanjusttraditionalWednesburygroundsandstatedthatthegateway(b)test3setoutbyLordHope
1 Kay v UK,Applicationno37341/06,[2011]HLR2,ECtHR.
2 [2008]UKHL57,[2009]1AC367.
3 iftherequirementsofthelawhavebeenestablishedandtherighttorecoverpossessionisunqualied,theonlysituationsinwhichitwouldbeopento
thecourttorefrainfromproceedingtosummaryjudgmentandmakingthepossessionorderarethese:(a)ifaseriouslyarguablepointisraisedthatthelawwhichenablesthecourttomakethepossessionorderisincompatiblewitharticle8[gateway(a)],(b)ifthedefendantwishestochallengethedecisionofapublicauthoritytorecoverpossessionasanimproperexerciseofits 6
Defendingpossessionproceeding
s7thedition:onlineupdate
March2011
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
8/16
De
fendingpossessionproceedings7thedition:onlineupda
teMarch2011
www.lag.org.u
k/DPP7
chapter 26 / Human rights defences
inKayshouldinfuturebeappliedinamoreexiblemanner,allow-ingforpersonalcircumstancestoberelevanttothecountycourtsassessmentofthereasonablenessofadecisiontoseekapossessionorder.TheECtHRnotedthatthewideningofgateway(b)occurred
aftertheendoftheKaycase.Itfoundabreachofarticle8initsproce-duralaspectbecausethedecisionbythecountycourttostrikeouttheoccupantsarticle8defencesmeantthattheproceduralsafeguardsrequiredbyarticle8fortheassessmentoftheproportionalityoftheinterferencewerenotmet.Theoccupantsweredispossessedoftheirhomeswithoutanypossibilityofhaving theproportionality ofthemeasuredeterminedbyanindependenttribunal.Modestcompensa-tionwasorderedtobepaid.
Insummary,theECtHRhaddecidedthatthesubstantivelaw,allow-ingalandownertoobtainapossessionorderagainstoccupantswhohadbecometrespassersdidnotbreacharticle8.Theproblem,atthetimeofKayintheEnglishcourts,wasprocedural.Thecourtswerenotabletoconsidertheproportionalityofthedecisiontobringthepossessionclaim.TheECtHRhasrepeatedlyrequiredthatthecourtdeterminingthepossessionclaimmustbeabletodecidethepropor-tionalityoftheproposedevictionandithasre-afrmedthatagainsinceitsdecisioninKay.4
InManchester CC v Pinnock,5afterconsideringthegrowingbodyofECtHRjurisprudenceonarticle8andpossessionclamsingeneral,theSupremeCourtheldthatifUKlawistobecompatiblewithart-icle8...thecourtmusthavethepowertoassesstheproportionalityofmakingtheorder,and,inmakingthatassessment,toresolveanyrelevantdisputeoffact.6
AfterreferringtothedecisionsoftheHouseofLordsinHarrow LBC
v Qazi,7
Kay v Lambeth LBC,8
andDoherty v Birmingham CC,9
LordNeuberger,givingthejudgmentoftheCourt,statedthatitwasun-necessary to consider them in any detail. As therewas now [an]
powersatcommonlawonthegroundthatitwasadecisionthatnoreasonablepersonwouldconsiderjustiable[gateway(b)]:Kay v Lambeth LBC; Pricev Leeds CC[2006]UKHL10,perLordHopeat[110].
4 Kryvitska v UkraineApplicationNo30856,January2011Legal Action35,ECtHR.
5 [2010]UKSC45,[2010]3WLR1441,[2011]HLR7.
6 [2010]UKSC45at[49] 7 [2003]UKHL43,[2004]1AC983.
8 [2006]UKHL10,[2006]2AC465.
9 [2008]UKHL57,[2009]1AC367. 7
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
9/16
De
fendingpossessionproceedings7thedition:onlineupda
teMarch2011
www.lag.org.u
k/DPP7
chapter 26 / Human rights defences
unambiguousandconsistentapproachoftheECtHR,theSupremeCourt had to consider whether it was appropriate to depart fromthosedecisions.AlthoughtheSupremeCourtwasnotboundtofol-lowStrasbourgdecisions,Where...thereisaclearandconstantline
ofdecisionswhoseeffectisnotinconsistentwithsomefundamentalsubstantiveorproceduralaspectofourlaw,andwhosereasoningdoesnot appear tooverlook ormisunderstand someargumentorpointofprinciple,weconsiderthatitwouldbewrongforthisCourtnottofollowthatline.10LordNeubergersaidthatevenbeforethedecisioninKay,wewould,inanyevent,havebeenoftheopinionthatthisCourtshouldnowacceptandapplytheminorityviewoftheHouseofLordsinthosecases.InthelightofKay,thatisclearlytherightconclusion.11
InHounslow LBC v Powell; Leeds CC v Hall; Birmingham CC v Frisby,12theSupremeCourtconrmedthatapproach.
Havingregardtotheserecentjudgments,itmaynowbehelpfultosetoutaseriesofquestionsandanswersrelatingtohowhumanrightsdefencesbasedontheparticularfactsofcasesmayarise.Theyaddressthecircumstancesinwhichthecourtdealingwiththepos-sessionclaimmayneedtoconsiderwhethergrantingitwouldbe
proportionate.
When does article 8 come into play?
InPowell,HallandFrisby,LordHopesaidthattheobligationtocon-siderproportionalityonlyarisesifthepropertyconstitutestheoccu-pantshome theindividualhastoshowsufcientandcontinuinglinkswithaplacetoshowthatitishisorherhomeforthepurposes
ofarticle8butinmostcasesitcanbetakenforgrantedthataclaimbyapersonwhoisinlawfuloccupationtoremaininpossessionwillattracttheprotectionofarticle8.13However,[the]courtwillonlyhavetoconsiderwhetherthemakingofapossessionorderispro-portionateiftheissuehasbeenraisedbytheoccupierandithascrossedthehighthresholdofbeingseriouslyarguable.Thequestionwillthenbewhethermakinganorderfortheoccupiersevictionisaproportionatemeansofachievingalegitimateaim.
10 [2010]UKSC45at[48].11 [2010]UKSC45at[49].
12 [2011]UKSC8,[2011]2WLR287.
13 [2011]UKSC8at[33]. 8
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
10/16
De
fendingpossessionproceedings7thedition:onlineupda
teMarch2011
www.lag.org.u
k/DPP7
chapter 26 / Human rights defences
Does Pinnockapply to other kinds of occupancylacking security of tenure?
Onthefaceofit,thedecisioninPinnockappearedtoapplytoallkindsofoccupancylackingsecurityoftenure,notjustdemotedtenancies.Theimportanceofthedecisioninrelationtooccupantsotherthande-motedtenantsappearstobedemonstratedbythefollowingpassages:
ifdomesticlawjustiesanoutrightorderforpossession,theeffectofarticle8may,albeitinexceptionalcases,justify(inascendingorderofeffect)grantinganextendedperiodforpossession,suspendingtheorderforpossessiononthehappeningofanevent,orevenrefusinganorderaltogether.14
theconclusionthatthecourtmusthavetheabilitytoassessthearticle8proportionalityofmakingapossessionorderin respectof aper-sonshomemayrequirecertainstatutoryandproceduralprovisionstoberevisited,egHousingAct1980s89andsomeoftheprovisionsofCPR55,whichappeartomandateasummaryprocedureinsometypesofpossessionclaim. 15
However,thisisanissuewhichwasarguedbeforetheSupremeCourtinPowell, HallandFrisby.InFrisby,notwithstandingPinnock, coun-selforBirminghamarguedthateventhoughthepremiseswereMrFrisbyshome,therewasnorequirementforanindependentdeter-minationofproportionalityunderarticle8duringthetrialperiodofoccupationandthatthedecisioninManchester CC v Cochrane,16re-mainedgoodlaw.InPowell,counselforHounslowarguedthatcourtswerenotentitledtoconsiderthelawfulnessofnoticestoquit,underarticle8,asnothinginthatarticlepermittedorrequiredthemtodoso.TheSecretaryofStateacceptedthatcountycourtshearingpossessionclaimsagainstintroductorytenantsmayconsiderdomesticpubliclaw
challengestobothdecisionstoservenoticesofproceedingsanddeci-sionstobeginpossessionproceedings,andmay,asnecessary,consid-eranyarticle8defencethatisraisedbytheoccupier.HealsoacceptedthatwhereatenancyhasbeengrantedunderHousingAct1996Part7,theoccupierwillinprinciplebeabletoraiseanarticle8defenceandarguethatthegrantofsuchanorderwouldbedisproportionate.
In Powell, Hall and Frisby, Lord Hope noted that in Pinnock theSupremeCourt held that article 8 requires courts asked tomake
14 [2011]UKSC8at[62].
15 [2011]UKSC8at[63].
16 [1999]1WLR809,CA. 9
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
11/16
De
fendingpossessionproceedings7thedition:onlineupda
teMarch2011
www.lag.org.u
k/DPP7
chapter 26 / Human rights defences
possessionordersagainstdemotedtenantstohavethepowertocon-siderwhethertheorderwouldbenecessaryinademocraticsociety.Heheldthatthispropositionappliestoallcaseswherealocalauthor-ityseekspossessioninrespectofapropertythatconstitutesaper-
sonshomeforthepurposesofarticle8.17
Sotheanswerisyes,whatwassaidinPinnockappliestootherkindsofoccupancylackingsecurityoftenure.
What is the extent of proportionality?
InPinnock, inrelationtodemotedtenants,LordNeubergerstatedthat:
anoccupierwhoisthedefendantinpossessionproceedingsintheCountyCourtandwhoclaimsthatitwouldbeincompatiblewithhisarticle8Conventionrightsforhimtobeputoutofhishomemustbeabletorelyonthoserightsindefendingthoseproceedings. 18
LordNeubergerreferredtotheviewthatitwouldonlybeinexcep-tionalcasesthatarticle8proportionalitywouldevenarguablygivearightforanoccupanttoremaininpossessionwheretherewasnosuch rightunder domestic law.19 However, he stated that consid-erationofproportionalityargumentsshouldnotbelimitedtovery
highlyexceptionalcases.Itwouldbebothunsafeandunhelpfultoinvokeexceptionalityasaguide....[E]xceptionalityisanoutcomeandnotaguide.20Thefactthattheauthorityisentitledtopossessionandshould,intheabsenceofcogentevidencetothecontrary,beassumedtobeactinginaccordancewithitsduties,willbeastrongfactorinsupportoftheproportionalityofmakinganorderforpos-session.21Hecontinuedbystatinginvirtuallyeverycasewherearesidentialoccupierhasnocontractualorstatutoryprotection,and
thelocalauthorityisentitledtopossessionasamatterofdomesticlaw,therewillbeaverystrongcaseforsayingthatmakinganorderforpossessionwouldbeproportionate.However,insomecasestheremaybefactorswhichwouldtelltheotherway.22
InPowell,HallandFrisby,LordHopesaidThethresholdforrais-inganarguablecaseonproportionality[is]ahighonewhichwould
17 [2011]UKSC8at[3].
18 [2010]UKSC45at[78].
19 SeeegMcCann v UK47EHRR913,para54;Kay v UK(Appno37341/06),para73.20 [2010]UKSC45at[51].
21 [2010]UKSC45at[53].
22 [2010]UKSC45at[54]. 10
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
12/16
De
fendingpossessionproceedings7thedition:onlineupda
teMarch2011
www.lag.org.u
k/DPP7
chapter 26 / Human rights defences
succeed in only a smallproportion of cases.23 [There] will be noneed,intheoverwhelmingmajorityofcases,forthelocalauthoritytoexplainandjustifyitsreasonsforseekingapossessionorder.24
InPinnock,theSupremeCourtdeclinedtogivefurtherguidance,statingThewideimplicationsoftheobligationtoconsiderthepro-portionalityofmakingapossessionorderarebestlefttothegoodsenseandexperienceofjudgessittingintheCountyCourt.25
How much wider is a proportionality defence thana conventional administrative law defence?
Oneofthekeydifferencesbetweenthehumanrightsdefencede-scribed in this Chapter and the public law defence (described inChapter25)isthatconventionaljudicialreviewandadministrativelawdefencesfocusuponthedecision-makingprocessandthepro-cedurefollowedbytheclaimant.However,humanrightsorpropor-tionalitydefencesfocusuponoutcomes.AsLordBinghamsaidinR (Begum) v Denbigh High School Governors26 whatmattersinanycaseisthepracticaloutcome,notthequalityofthedecision-making
processthatledtoit.27
Inahumanrightsdefencethecourtisdecidingforitselfonthefactsasagreed(orasfoundattrial)whetherthemakingofapossessionorderwouldbeproportionate.Inapubliclawdefencethecourtissimplydecidingwhethertheclaimislawfullybroughttothecourtbytheclaimant.
There is no doubt that themerits of the personal circumstancesof the occupants will be important in human rightsdefences. In
Pinnock,LordNeubergersaidthatthesubmissionsthatproportion-ality ismore likely to be a relevant issueinrespectof occupantswhoarevulnerableasaresultofmentalillness,physicalorlearningdisability,poorhealthorfrailty,andthattheissuemayalsorequirethe localauthority toexplainwhy theyarenotsecuringalternativeaccommodationinsuchcasesseemedtobewellmade.28
23 [2011]UKSC8at[35].Seetoo[92].
24 [2011]UKSC8at[37].Seetoo[88].
25 [2010]UKSC45at[57].26 [2006]UKHL15,(2007)1AC100
27 [2006]UKHL15at[31].
28 [2010]UKSC45at[64]. 11
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
13/16
De
fendingpossessionproceedings7thedition:onlineupda
teMarch2011
www.lag.org.u
k/DPP7
chapter 26 / Human rights defences
However,occupantsdefendingpossessionclaimsmaywellbeabletorelyonbothtraditionaladministrativelawgroundsinapubliclawdefenceandproportionalityargumentsinahumanrightsdefence.Ifthathappens,courtswillhavetoconsiderboththedecisionmaking
processbytheclaimantandtheoccupantspersonalcircumstances.
In what kind of cases will human rights orproportionality defences succeed?
Thefollowingarepossiblesituationsinwhichadefencemightsuc-ceed depending upon the particular factual circumstances of the
defendantscase.(a)MrandMrsAarejointtenants.MrsAisblameless.MrAleaves
thepremisesandeitheroutofspiteorbecausehedoesnotwanttocontinuetobeliableforrent,heservesanoticetoquit,termi-natingthetenancy.Perhapsthelandlordencourageshimtoservea notice. The former landlord then brings a possession claimagainstMrsA.
(b)AcouncilgrantsatenancytoMrB.Helivesintheatuntilhe
dies.Hiswifesucceedstothetenancybutshetoodies.Thecoun-cilthenservesanoticetoquit.MrBssonwhohaslivedinthepropertyfor50yearshasnostatutoryrighttosucceedandfacesaclaimforpossession.
(c)MsCisasoletenant,livinginpremiseswithher20-year-oldson.He has never lived anywhere else. She abandons the tenancy,leavinghiminoccupation.Theclaimantservesnoticetoquitandbringsapossessionclaim.
(d)AhousingassociationbringsapossessionclaimagainstMrD,an assured tenant, under mandatory Ground 8 Housing Act1988.MrDdefendssayinghehasahousingbenetclaimwhichthroughnofaultofhisownhasnotyetbeendetermined.Ifitisgranted,thehousingbenetwillclearthearrears. 29(OrahousingassociationseekspossessiononthesamefactsagainstanassuredshortholdrelyinguponaHousingAct1988s21notice.)
(e)MsE,anelderlyoccupier,isterminallyill(orabouttoundergomajorsurgery)buttheclaimantseeksimmediatepossession.
29 SeeNorth British Housing Association Limited v Matthews [2004]EWCACiv1736;[2005]1WLR3133 12
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
14/16
De
fendingpossessionproceedings7thedition:onlineupda
teMarch2011
www.lag.org.u
k/DPP7
chapter 26 / Human rights defences
What is the test to be applied when county courtjudges initially consider whether to dispose ofpublic law defences summarily?
InPinnock,LordNeubergerstated:
Ifanarticle8pointisraised,thecourtshouldinitiallyconsideritsummarily,andif,aswillnodoubtoftenbethecase,thecourtissatisedthat,evenifthefactsreliedonaremadeout,thepointwouldnotsucceed,itshouldbedismissed.Onlyifthecourtissatisedthatitcouldaffecttheorderthatthecourtmightmakeshouldthepointbefurtherentertained.30
InPowell,HallandFrisby,LordHopesaidacourtshouldinitially
consider[thatquestion]summarilyandifitissatisedthat,evenifthefactsrelieduponaremadeout,thepointwouldnotsucceed,itshouldbedismissed.31
Whatthenisthetestforsummarydisposal?TheSupremeCourtinPinnock appeartohavetakenthereferencetosummarydisposalfromtheECtHRdecisioninMcCannv UKwheretheyreferredtooccupantsraisinganarguablecasewhichwouldrequireacourttoexaminetheissue; in the greatmajority of cases, anorder forpossession could
continuetobemadeinsummaryproceedings.32InFrisby, HallandPowell,counselfortheSecretaryofStatearguedthatregardshouldbehadtoCPR55.8(2)whethertheclaimisgenuinelydisputedongroundswhichappeartobesubstantial.Ontheotherhand,CPRRule24.2(Groundsforsummaryjudgment)providesthatThecourtmaygivesummaryjudgmentagainstaclaimantordefendantonthewholeofaclaimoronaparticularissueif(a)itconsiders(ii)thatdefend-anthasnorealprospectofsuccessfullydefendingtheclaimorissue.
Itmaybethatthereislittledifferencebetweenthetwotests.
Whatfacts should county court judges consider?
InPinnock,LordNeubergersaid
EurCtHRjurisprudencerequiresthecourtconsideringsuchachal-lengetohavethepowertomakeitsownassessmentofanyrelevantfactswhichareindispute.[73]
30 [2010]UKSC45at[61].
31 [2011]UKSC8at[34].Seetoo[92].
32 (2008)47EHRRatpara54. 13
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
15/16
De
fendingpossessionproceedings7thedition:onlineupda
teMarch2011
www.lag.org.u
k/DPP7 Whereitisrequiredinordertogiveeffecttoanoccupiersarticle8
Conventionrights,thecourtspowersofreviewcan,inanappropri-atecase,extendtoreconsideringforitselfthefactsfoundbyalocalauthority, or indeed to considering facts which have arisen sincetheissueofproceedings,byhearingevidenceandformingitsownview.[74]
aCountyCourtjudgewhoisinvitedtomakeanorderforpossessionagainstademotedtenantcan considerwhether itisproportion-atetomaketheordersought,andcaninvestigateanddetermineanyissuesoffactrelevantforthepurposeofthatexercise.[para104]
However,sincealocalauthoritysaiminwantingpossessionshouldbeagiven,whichdoesnothavetobeexplainedorjustiedincourt,[t]hecourtwillonlybeconcernedwiththeoccupierspersonalcir-cumstances.[53]
Inthelightofthesepronouncements,ifadefenceisraisedandisnotdismissedsummarily,thecourtmustdetermineanydisputedfactualissues.
InPowell,HallandFrisby,inrelationtointroductorytenancies,LordHopestatedat[53]thatthecourtspowersofreviewcan,inanappro-priate case, extend to reconsidering for itself the facts found by a
localauthority,orindeedtoconsideringthefactswhichhavearisensincetheissueofproceedings,byhearingevidenceandformingitsownview.
What, if any, is the effect ofPinnockand Powellonlandlords other than local authorities?
InPinnock, LordNeubergerstatedthatthecourtsobservationsrelat-ingtolocalauthoritylandlordsappliedequallytoothersocialland-lordstotheextentthattheyarepublicauthoritiesundertheHumanRights Act 1998, but nothing in the judgment applied to privatelandowners.So,inviewofR (Weaver) v London & Quadrant HousingTrust,33ifahousingassociationorotherPRPSHisapublicauthorityallthatissaidinPinnock, Powell, Halland Frisbyappliesequallytoit.Seefurtherparagraphs26.14andfollowinginthischapter.
33 [2009]EWCACiv587,[2010]1WLR363. 14
chapter 26 / Human rights defences
8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings
16/16
De
fendingpossessionproceedings7thedition:onlineupda
teMarch2011
www.lag.org.u
k/DPP7 What about Housing Act 1980 s89?
InPinnock,LordNeubergersaidthatHousingAct1980s89(whichinmanycaseslimitstheperiodforwhichapossessionordercanbe
postponedlimitedto14daysunlessexceptionalhardshipwhen42days)andsomeoftheprovisionsofCPR55,whichappeartoman-dateasummaryprocedureinsometypesofpossessionclaim,maypresent difculties in relation to caseswhere article 8 claims areraised.
However,theSupremeCourtlaterconsideredHousingAct1980s89inPowell, Hall and Frisby.NotwithstandingwhatwassaidinPinnock,itstatedthatnoevidencehadbeenputbeforeittoshowthatinprac-
ticethemaximumperiodofsixweekswasinsufcienttomeettheneedsofcasesofexceptionalhardship.[Any]readingdownofthesectiontoenablethecourttopostponetheexecutionofanorderforpossessionofadwelling-housewhichwasnotletonasecuretenancyforalongerperiodthanthestatutorymaximumwouldgowellbe-yondwhat[HumanRightsAct1998]section3(1)permits.34
However,section89doesnottakeawayfromthecourtitsordinarypowersofcasemanagement.Itwouldbeperfectlyproperforit,for
example,todefermakingtheorderforpossessionpendinganappealortoenableproceedingstobebroughtin theadministrativecourtwhichmightresultinandingthatitwasnotlawfulforapossessionordertobemade.35
Whatthenifalocalauthorityseekspossessionagainstaterminallyillnon-secureoccupantwhoislikelytodieinsixmonthstime?Beforending decidingwhetheror not theclaimant is entitled to apos-sessionorder,thecourtmaybeabletoadjourn.However,ifatrial
hastakenplace,itseemsthatthecourthaslimitedoptionseitherndingthatitisdisproportionatetomakeapossessionorderatallanddismissingtheclaimorndingthattheclaimantisentitledtopossessionandthatitisproportionatetomakeapossessionordertotakeeffectinsixweeks(assumingexceptionalhardship).
34 [2011]UKSC8at[62].
35 [2011]UKSC8at[63].
15
chapter 26 / Human rights defences
Jan Luba QC, John Gallagher, Derek McConnell and Nic Madge 2011.Defending possession proceedings, 7th edition, is available at www.lag.org.uk/books