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.
Answer
Pinnock v Manchester City Council [2010] UKSC 45
Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
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.
Answer
?
Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
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.
Answer
Pinnock v Manchester City Council [2010] UKSC 45
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it 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
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.