In his recent NLJ article, Valuable possession, Jon Holbrook argues that the court should summarily dismiss almost all defences to claims for possession...
Sam Madge-Wyld & Sarah Salmon revisit the rights and wrongs of
Article 8 and possession claims
In his recent NLJ article, Valuable possession, Jon Holbrook argues that the court should summarily dismiss almost all defences to claims for possession based on either proportionality or public law unless they are exceptional cases (see NLJ, 25 March 2011, p 425). See: http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/valuable-possession
That is, we say, to misstate the law and an argument that is no longer sustainable for local authorities and private registered providers of social housing (PRPSH) (who are public authorities) to adopt in litigation.
In Pinnock v Manchester City Council [2011] 1 All ER 285, the Supreme Court, as a whole, said that it would “be both unsafe and unhelpful to invoke exceptionality as a guide...[because] exceptionality is an outcome and not a guide...[and] there may be more cases than...[had previously been supposed] where Art 8 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] could reasonably
