Is proportionality moving in? Robert Strang reports on orders for sale after Pinnock
On an application for an order for sale of property to enforce a charging order, the law as it is presently applied by the High Court does not require explicit consideration of the occupants’ human rights (in particular those protected by Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights) or the proportionality of the proposed interference with them: NatWest Bank v Rushmer [2010] EWHC 554 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 205 (Mar) paras 50 and 51.
In Manchester CC v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2010] All ER (D) 42 (Nov) in respect of possession orders sought by public authority landlords, the Supreme Court bowed to the repeated insistence by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that people facing eviction from their home are entitled to have the proportionality of the decision to evict them assessed by a court.
Although the Supreme Court said that its judgment in Pinnock only bears on local authority landlords in possession claims, it is likely to have a wider effect, at least as an
