A more recent example of the courts applying the HRA 1998, s 3(1) is provided by Pinnock v Manchester City Council [2010] UKSC 45. The case concerned a local housing authority which sought a possession order from the county court under the Housing Act 1996, s 143 on the grounds of anti-social behaviour on the part of a 'demoted' tenant. It was held by the Supreme Court that county court judges were required by the ECHR, art 8 to consider the proportionality of evicting a person from his home when granting this type of possession order. It was noted that the Housing Act 1996, s 143 had been drafted by Parliament with the intention that county court judges would grant possession orders against demoted tenants once the housing authority had adhered to the procedural requirements contained within the Act. The Supreme Court, however, read the word 'lawful' into the Housing Act 1996, s 143 (using its power under the HRA 1998, s 3(1)), so that county court judges could review the proportionality of the possession order.