In London and Quadrant Housing Trust v Patrick (2019) EWHC 1263 (QB) Turner J at paragraph 42 listed the factors which are likely, at least in many instances, to be the most relevant to be considered in the context of possession cases:-

Read more »

In the revised benefit cap case, R (DA) v SoS for Work and Pensions (2019) UKSC 21, the Supreme Court said, with respect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“the UNCRC”), that:-

Read more »

In R (TP) v SoS for DWP (2019) EWHC 1116 (Admin) Swift J said:-

Read more »

In R (SC) v SoS for Work and Pensions (2019) EWCA Civ 615 Leggatt LJ said as regards the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”):-

“29.    … the Convention is not aimed at securing social and economic rights. The rights defined in the Convention are predominantly civil and political in nature. This reflects the original purpose of the Convention, conceived and developed as it was in the aftermath of the Second World War as a bulwark for protecting the peoples of Europe against tyranny and oppression. As stated in its Preamble, the Convention is a collective enterprise of European countries which are “like-minded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law”, and is designed to maintain “those fundamental freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world.” Within the legal framework established by the Council of Europe, social and economic rights are protected by a separate treaty, the European Social Charter, adopted by the Council in 1961. Read more »

Fearn and Others v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery (2019) EWHC 246 (Ch) is an injunction case brought in nuisance and under the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the HRA”) to protect what are said to be Article 8 rights of privacy in flats in a development on the south side of the Thames adjacent to the Tate Modern. One issue, under Section 6(3)(b) of the HRA, was whether the Tate, given Section 2(2) of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992, significant public funding, and controls by state officials, is a “hybrid” public authority against whom the HRA can be directly enforced.

Mann J addressed the law on “hybrid” public authorities from paragraph 108 of his Judgment, and the question whether the Tate is such an authority from paragraph 121. At paragraph 123 he said that the Tate displayed, to some degree, some of the factors which are said in the authorities to be relevant to the question whether the Tate is exercising public functions. None of them, however, were determinative. Read more »

Dylan Powell v Dacorum Borough Council (2019) EWCA Civ 23 concerned an application for an order suspending a warrant for possession.  The warrant had been issued, at the request of the Council, as landlord, in enforcement of a possession order of residential premises.  The issue on the appeal was whether the application, which was refused, should have succeeded, on the basis that, in pursuing the enforcement, the Council acted in breach of the PSED.  The appeal was dismissed. Read more »

R (Atta Ul Haq) v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (2019) EWHC 70 (Admin) was a claim for judicial review in which the Claimant challenged the lawfulness of a policy adopted by the Defendant, Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council, entitled ‘Rules and Regulations in respect of Cemeteries and Crematoria’ (the “Cemetery Policy”), specifically those provisions which preclude individuals from erecting raised edging around the grave of a deceased person. The Claimant is a practising Barelvi Muslim. His father was a prominent member of the community and an Imam, passed away on 21 June 2015 and was buried on the following day at Streetly Cemetery. It is administered by the Defendant local authority. The Defendant had refused to give the Claimant permission for the erection of a four-inch raised marble edging around his father’s grave. The Claimant’s request arises from his religious belief that the grave is sacrosanct and stepping on the grave is an offensive, religiously proscribed act that must be prevented. Read more »

An individual is vulnerable to exploitation because of physical and/or mental disability. Their flat has been taken over by others to deal drugs. This is a situation known as “cuckooing”. The individual’s local authority or housing association landlord seeks a possession order, on the ground of anti-social behaviour, involving drug use, in the flat, which causes distress to fellow residents, over an extended period of time. This situation has not been considered by the Courts in the context
Read more »

The Judgment on 10 December 2018 in the EAT of Elisabeth Laing J in OFGEM v Pytel is instructive on when it is possible to read and give effect to a statutory provision so as to make it compatible with ECHR rights. The balance to be struck between the rights of putative whistleblowers and the safeguarding of rights to restrict the circulation of business information obtained in the exercise of regulatory functions was for Parliament and the Secretary of State, not for the Courts.

In R (Stott) v SoS for Justice (2018) UKSC 59 the Supreme Court considered the scope of “other status” within the Article 14 prohibition of the ECHR.  Lady Black, delivering the principal Judgment, said, at paragraph 80, that when considering an as yet unconsidered characteristic, a Court will have in mind the nature of the grounds it was thought right to list specifically.  However, a strict ejusdem generis interpretation would be unduly restrictive. At paragraph 81, Lady Black said that, although “not open-ended”, the grounds within Article 14 are to be given “a generous meaning”.