defending possesion proceedings

8/2/2019 Defending Possesion Proceedings

1/16

Defending

possessionproceedings

SEVENTH EDITION (August 2010)

ONLINE UPDATE: March 2011

Jan Luba QC, John Gallagher,

Derek McConnell and Nic Madge

Legal Action Group2011


2/16

De

fendingpossessionproceedings7thedition:onlineupda

teMarch2011

www.lag.org.u

k/DPP7 CHAPTER 7

Introductory tenancies

Asforeshadowedbythespecialnoteonpage172oftheseventhedi-tion,theSupremeCourthasnowhadtheopportunitytoconsidertheimpactoftheHumanRightsAct1998onpossessionproceedingsbroughtagainstintroductorytenants.

InLeeds CC v HallandBirmingham CC v Frisbyitdealtwithappealsbroughtbytwointroductorytenants.TheCourtheldthatinprincipleitisopentoanintroductorytenanttoadvance:

(1)apubliclawdefencetotheclaim(ie,anassertionthatthebring-ingoftheproceedingsistheresultofunlawfuldecision-makingbythecouncillandlordseechapter25andtheupdatingnotetoitprovidedbelow);1and/or

(2)adefencerelyinguponarticle8oftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRightsthatthemakingofapossessionorderwouldnotbeproportionateonthefactsofthecase(seechapter26Humanrightsdefencesandtheupdatingnotetoitprovidedbelow).

ThetwoappealsarereportedunderthenameHounslow LBC v Powell2

(athirdcasewithwhichtheywereheard).Forthejudgments,see:http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/8.pdf

Intheevent,theCourtdecidedonthefactsthatneitherintroductorytenantintheappealsbeforethemhadaseriouslyarguabledefenceofeithertype.Thehistoryofnoisenuisanceproblemsarisingduringtheirtenanciesamplyjustiedtheirlandlordsactions.

1 ThedecisioninManchester CC v Cochrane[1999]1WLR809,(1999)31HLR180,CAtothecontraryeffectshouldnolongerbefollowedsee ManchesterCC v Pinnock [2010]UKSC45paras[82][87].

2 [2011]UKSC8,[2011]2WLR287. 1


3/16

De


teMarch2011

www.lag.org.u

k/DPP7 CHAPTER 8

Demoted tenancies

Asforeshadowedbythespecialnoteonpage189oftheseventhedi-tion,theSupremeCourthasnowhadtheopportunitytoconsidertheimpactoftheHumanRightsAct1998onpossessionproceedingsbroughtagainstdemotedtenants.

InManchester CC v Pinnock1itdealtwithanappealagainstaposses-sionorderbroughtbyademotedtenant.Itheldthatinprincipleitisopentoademotedtenanttoadvance:

(1)apubliclawdefencetotheclaim(ie,anassertionthatthebring-ingoftheproceedingsistheresultofunlawfuldecision-makingbythecouncillandlordseechapter25);and/or

(2)adefencerelyinguponarticle8oftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRightsthatthemakingofapossessionorderwouldnotbeproportionateonthefactsofthecase(seechapter26Humanrightsdefences).

Forthejudgment,see:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/45.pdf Intheevent,onthefactstheCourtdecidedthattheevictionofMr

Pinnockwouldbeproportionategiventhelonghistoryofseriousanti-socialbehaviourassociatedwithmembersofhishousehold.

1 [2010]UKSC45,[2011]HLR7,[2011]1AllER285,[2010]3WLR1441. 2


4/16

De


teMarch2011

www.lag.org.u

k/DPP7 CHAPTER 25

Public law defences

TheRecentdevelopmentssectionattheendofthischapter(paras25.3625.38)agged-uppendingcasesintheSupremeCourtwhichwere expected to consider further the availability of public lawdefencesinpossessionproceedings.

In therstof thosecases,Manchester CC v Pinnock,1 theSupremeCourtdecided that apublic law defence is available in thecountycourt evenwhere the statutory jurisdiction of that court seems tobelimitedtocheckingwhethertheproceduralrequirementsforthemakingofapossessionorderaresatised.2

ThejudgmentcontainsausefulsummaryofthemostrecentHouseofLordscasesontheavailabilityofthepubliclawdefence(orthejudicialreviewdefence).LordNeubergersaidat[27][28]:

[InKay v Lambeth LBC[2006]2AC465atpara110]LordHopeex-plainedthat,followingWandsworth London Borough Council v Winder[1985]AC461,inprinciple,itwouldbeopentoadefendanttochal-lengethedecisionofalocalauthoritytorecoverpossessionasanim-properexerciseofitspowersatcommonlawonthetraditionaljudi-cialreviewgroundthatitwasadecisionthatnoreasonablepersonwouldconsiderjustiable.

InDoherty v BirminghamCC[2009]1AC367thelawasstatedinpara110ofKaywassubstantiallyreafrmed...Thelawonthejudicialre-viewpointwasafrmedbyLordHope,LordWalker,andLordMance,atparas56,123and157respectively.

1 [2010]UKSC45,[2011]HLR7,[2011]1AllER285,[210]3WLR1441.

2 ThedecisioninManchester CC v Cochrane[1999]1WLR809,(1999)31HLR180,CAtothecontraryeffectshouldnolongerbefollowedsee ManchesterCC v Pinnock paras[82][87]. 3


5/16

De


teMarch2011

www.lag.org.u

k/DPP7 Thejudgmentlaterrestatesthelawontheavailabilityofpubliclaw

defencesinthesetermsat[81]:

whereatenantcontendsthatthedecisionofalocalauthoritylandlordtoissue,orindeedtocontinue,possessionproceedingscaninsome

waybeimpugned,thetenantshouldbeentitledtoraisethatconten-tioninthepossessionproceedingsthemselves,eveniftheyareintheCountyCourt.Thisseems tous tofollowfromthedecisionof theHouseofLordsinWandsworth v Winder[1985]AC461,ascitedandapprovedinthepresentcontextinKay v Lambeth [2006]2AC465,para110,andagaininDoherty v Birmingham[2009]1AC367,paras56,123and157(seepara28above).Thisapproachalsoderivesstrongsupport from the observations of LordBinghaminKay v Lambeth[2006]2AC465,para30.

Theseprinciplesmustnowberegardedaswellsettled.Where theclaimant for possession is a body whichwould be amenable to ajudicialreviewofitsdecision-makingintheAdministrativeCourt,thedefendanttoapossessionclaimcaninprincipledeployapubliclawdefenceinthecountycourt.Whethersuchadefenceisinprac-ticeavailablewilldependonthefactsofthecase.

InPinnock,theclaimforpossessionwasbroughtagainstademoted3tenant.Thetenanthadreceivednoticeofintentiontoseekposses-

sionandanoralhearingbyaPanelofcouncilofcersofanapplica-tionforareviewofthatdecision.LordNeubergersaidat[72]:

Rightly,inourview,itiscommongroundthatacourthasjurisdic-tion,undernormaljudicialreviewprinciples,tosatisfyitselfthatthelocalauthorityandPanelhaveindeedactedreasonablyandhavein-vestigatedtherelevantfactsfairly,whendecidingtobringpossessionproceedings.Fromthisitmustfollowthatanydecisionbythelocalauthoritytocontinuepossessionproceedingsissimilarlysusceptibletojudicialreview.Atthesametime,itisrighttoemphasisethatitwouldalmostalwaysrequireamarkedchangeofcircumstancesfol -lowingaPanelsdecisiontoapprovetheproceedings,beforeanat-temptcouldproperlybemadetojudiciallyreviewthecontinuanceofproceedingswhichwereinitiallyjustied.

InamorerecentgroupofSupremeCourtcases,reportedunderthenameHounslow LBC v Powell,4theSupremeCourtadditionallyde-cidedthat:

(1)thedecisiontocommencepossessionproceedingswasoneinre-spectofwhichreasonsshouldnormallybeprovidedtotheprospective

3 Seechapter8.

4 [2011]UKSC8,[2011]2WLR287.

chapter 25 / Public law defences

4


6/16

De


teMarch2011

www.lag.org.u

k/DPP7 defendant,notlaterthanthepointintimeatwhichatenantwould

needtoframetheirdefence; 5and

(2)apubliclawdefenceinthecountycourtcouldnotonlychallengethedecisiontobringtheproceedingsbutalsoanypriordecisionon

whichthepossessionclaimwasfoundede.g.thedecisiontoserveanoticetoquit.6

Ofthevariousquestionsaboutthescopeofpubliclawdefenceslistedinchapter25(atpages446447)thesecasesdirectlyanswerques-tions(2)and(4).ThoseanswersarerespectivelyYesandNo.

Theserecentcasesemphasiseapointattheheartofchapter25thatthepubliclawdefenceisaboutchallengingthedecision-makingbytheclaimantatanyofthestagesuptoandincludingthedecisionto

presstheclaimatatrial.Ithasnothingtodowithanevaluationbythecourtofthefactualcircumstancesoftheclaim.Thatsortofevalu-ationwillbeundertakeneitheraspartofthecourtsconsiderationofreasonableness(ifthetenanthasfullsecurityoftenure)orinthecourseofdeterminingaproportionalitydefenceasdiscussedinchap-ter26(wheretheoccupierdoesnotenjoyfullsecurityoftenure).

5 PerLordPhillipsat[114][117].

6 PerLordPhillipsat[120].

chapter 25 / Public law defences

5


7/16

CHAPTER 26

Human rights defences

TheRecentdevelopmentssectionattheendofthischapter(paras26.4726.51)intheseventhedition,agged-uppendingcasesintheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights(ECtHR)andintheSupremeCourtwhichwereexpectedtoconsiderfurthertheavailabilityofhumanrightsdefencesinpossessionproceedings.Decisionsinthosecasesarenowavailable.Theydonotrelatetowhatissaidinthischapteratparagraphs26.2826.32aboutdefenceswhichchallengethelawunderlyingapossessionclaim.Rathertheyareconcernedwiththe

discussionatparagraphs26.3326.45aboutdefencesbasedontheparticularfactsofacase.Collectively,theyafrmthatahumanrightsdefenceisinprincipleavailableinthepossessionproceedings.

Atthetimethattheoriginalchapter26oftheseventheditionwasdraftedthedecisionoftheECtHRinKay v UKwasawaited(seepara-graph26.45). That decisionhas now beendelivered.1TheECtHRwelcomedtheincreasingtendencyofthedomesticcourtstodevelopandexpandconventionaljudicialreviewgroundsinthelightofart-

icle8.ItnotedthatinBirmingham CC v Doherty,2

theHouseofLordshadreferredtothepossibilityofchallengesonconventionaljudicialreviewgroundsencompassingmorethanjusttraditionalWednesburygroundsandstatedthatthegateway(b)test3setoutbyLordHope

1 Kay v UK,Applicationno37341/06,[2011]HLR2,ECtHR.

2 [2008]UKHL57,[2009]1AC367.

3 iftherequirementsofthelawhavebeenestablishedandtherighttorecoverpossessionisunqualied,theonlysituationsinwhichitwouldbeopento

thecourttorefrainfromproceedingtosummaryjudgmentandmakingthepossessionorderarethese:(a)ifaseriouslyarguablepointisraisedthatthelawwhichenablesthecourttomakethepossessionorderisincompatiblewitharticle8[gateway(a)],(b)ifthedefendantwishestochallengethedecisionofapublicauthoritytorecoverpossessionasanimproperexerciseofits 6

Defendingpossessionproceeding

s7thedition:onlineupdate

March2011


8/16

De


teMarch2011

www.lag.org.u

k/DPP7

chapter 26 / Human rights defences

inKayshouldinfuturebeappliedinamoreexiblemanner,allow-ingforpersonalcircumstancestoberelevanttothecountycourtsassessmentofthereasonablenessofadecisiontoseekapossessionorder.TheECtHRnotedthatthewideningofgateway(b)occurred

aftertheendoftheKaycase.Itfoundabreachofarticle8initsproce-duralaspectbecausethedecisionbythecountycourttostrikeouttheoccupantsarticle8defencesmeantthattheproceduralsafeguardsrequiredbyarticle8fortheassessmentoftheproportionalityoftheinterferencewerenotmet.Theoccupantsweredispossessedoftheirhomeswithoutanypossibilityofhaving theproportionality ofthemeasuredeterminedbyanindependenttribunal.Modestcompensa-tionwasorderedtobepaid.

Insummary,theECtHRhaddecidedthatthesubstantivelaw,allow-ingalandownertoobtainapossessionorderagainstoccupantswhohadbecometrespassersdidnotbreacharticle8.Theproblem,atthetimeofKayintheEnglishcourts,wasprocedural.Thecourtswerenotabletoconsidertheproportionalityofthedecisiontobringthepossessionclaim.TheECtHRhasrepeatedlyrequiredthatthecourtdeterminingthepossessionclaimmustbeabletodecidethepropor-tionalityoftheproposedevictionandithasre-afrmedthatagainsinceitsdecisioninKay.4

InManchester CC v Pinnock,5afterconsideringthegrowingbodyofECtHRjurisprudenceonarticle8andpossessionclamsingeneral,theSupremeCourtheldthatifUKlawistobecompatiblewithart-icle8...thecourtmusthavethepowertoassesstheproportionalityofmakingtheorder,and,inmakingthatassessment,toresolveanyrelevantdisputeoffact.6

AfterreferringtothedecisionsoftheHouseofLordsinHarrow LBC

v Qazi,7

Kay v Lambeth LBC,8

andDoherty v Birmingham CC,9

LordNeuberger,givingthejudgmentoftheCourt,statedthatitwasun-necessary to consider them in any detail. As therewas now [an]

powersatcommonlawonthegroundthatitwasadecisionthatnoreasonablepersonwouldconsiderjustiable[gateway(b)]:Kay v Lambeth LBC; Pricev Leeds CC[2006]UKHL10,perLordHopeat[110].

4 Kryvitska v UkraineApplicationNo30856,January2011Legal Action35,ECtHR.

5 [2010]UKSC45,[2010]3WLR1441,[2011]HLR7.

6 [2010]UKSC45at[49] 7 [2003]UKHL43,[2004]1AC983.

8 [2006]UKHL10,[2006]2AC465.

9 [2008]UKHL57,[2009]1AC367. 7


9/16

De


teMarch2011

www.lag.org.u

k/DPP7


unambiguousandconsistentapproachoftheECtHR,theSupremeCourt had to consider whether it was appropriate to depart fromthosedecisions.AlthoughtheSupremeCourtwasnotboundtofol-lowStrasbourgdecisions,Where...thereisaclearandconstantline

ofdecisionswhoseeffectisnotinconsistentwithsomefundamentalsubstantiveorproceduralaspectofourlaw,andwhosereasoningdoesnot appear tooverlook ormisunderstand someargumentorpointofprinciple,weconsiderthatitwouldbewrongforthisCourtnottofollowthatline.10LordNeubergersaidthatevenbeforethedecisioninKay,wewould,inanyevent,havebeenoftheopinionthatthisCourtshouldnowacceptandapplytheminorityviewoftheHouseofLordsinthosecases.InthelightofKay,thatisclearlytherightconclusion.11

InHounslow LBC v Powell; Leeds CC v Hall; Birmingham CC v Frisby,12theSupremeCourtconrmedthatapproach.

Havingregardtotheserecentjudgments,itmaynowbehelpfultosetoutaseriesofquestionsandanswersrelatingtohowhumanrightsdefencesbasedontheparticularfactsofcasesmayarise.Theyaddressthecircumstancesinwhichthecourtdealingwiththepos-sessionclaimmayneedtoconsiderwhethergrantingitwouldbe

proportionate.

When does article 8 come into play?

InPowell,HallandFrisby,LordHopesaidthattheobligationtocon-siderproportionalityonlyarisesifthepropertyconstitutestheoccu-pantshome theindividualhastoshowsufcientandcontinuinglinkswithaplacetoshowthatitishisorherhomeforthepurposes

ofarticle8butinmostcasesitcanbetakenforgrantedthataclaimbyapersonwhoisinlawfuloccupationtoremaininpossessionwillattracttheprotectionofarticle8.13However,[the]courtwillonlyhavetoconsiderwhetherthemakingofapossessionorderispro-portionateiftheissuehasbeenraisedbytheoccupierandithascrossedthehighthresholdofbeingseriouslyarguable.Thequestionwillthenbewhethermakinganorderfortheoccupiersevictionisaproportionatemeansofachievingalegitimateaim.

10 [2010]UKSC45at[48].11 [2010]UKSC45at[49].

12 [2011]UKSC8,[2011]2WLR287.

13 [2011]UKSC8at[33]. 8


10/16

De


teMarch2011

www.lag.org.u

k/DPP7


Does Pinnockapply to other kinds of occupancylacking security of tenure?

Onthefaceofit,thedecisioninPinnockappearedtoapplytoallkindsofoccupancylackingsecurityoftenure,notjustdemotedtenancies.Theimportanceofthedecisioninrelationtooccupantsotherthande-motedtenantsappearstobedemonstratedbythefollowingpassages:

ifdomesticlawjustiesanoutrightorderforpossession,theeffectofarticle8may,albeitinexceptionalcases,justify(inascendingorderofeffect)grantinganextendedperiodforpossession,suspendingtheorderforpossessiononthehappeningofanevent,orevenrefusinganorderaltogether.14

theconclusionthatthecourtmusthavetheabilitytoassessthearticle8proportionalityofmakingapossessionorderin respectof aper-sonshomemayrequirecertainstatutoryandproceduralprovisionstoberevisited,egHousingAct1980s89andsomeoftheprovisionsofCPR55,whichappeartomandateasummaryprocedureinsometypesofpossessionclaim. 15

However,thisisanissuewhichwasarguedbeforetheSupremeCourtinPowell, HallandFrisby.InFrisby,notwithstandingPinnock, coun-selforBirminghamarguedthateventhoughthepremiseswereMrFrisbyshome,therewasnorequirementforanindependentdeter-minationofproportionalityunderarticle8duringthetrialperiodofoccupationandthatthedecisioninManchester CC v Cochrane,16re-mainedgoodlaw.InPowell,counselforHounslowarguedthatcourtswerenotentitledtoconsiderthelawfulnessofnoticestoquit,underarticle8,asnothinginthatarticlepermittedorrequiredthemtodoso.TheSecretaryofStateacceptedthatcountycourtshearingpossessionclaimsagainstintroductorytenantsmayconsiderdomesticpubliclaw

challengestobothdecisionstoservenoticesofproceedingsanddeci-sionstobeginpossessionproceedings,andmay,asnecessary,consid-eranyarticle8defencethatisraisedbytheoccupier.HealsoacceptedthatwhereatenancyhasbeengrantedunderHousingAct1996Part7,theoccupierwillinprinciplebeabletoraiseanarticle8defenceandarguethatthegrantofsuchanorderwouldbedisproportionate.

In Powell, Hall and Frisby, Lord Hope noted that in Pinnock theSupremeCourt held that article 8 requires courts asked tomake

14 [2011]UKSC8at[62].

15 [2011]UKSC8at[63].

16 [1999]1WLR809,CA. 9


11/16

De


teMarch2011

www.lag.org.u

k/DPP7


possessionordersagainstdemotedtenantstohavethepowertocon-siderwhethertheorderwouldbenecessaryinademocraticsociety.Heheldthatthispropositionappliestoallcaseswherealocalauthor-ityseekspossessioninrespectofapropertythatconstitutesaper-

sonshomeforthepurposesofarticle8.17

Sotheanswerisyes,whatwassaidinPinnockappliestootherkindsofoccupancylackingsecurityoftenure.

What is the extent of proportionality?

InPinnock, inrelationtodemotedtenants,LordNeubergerstatedthat:

anoccupierwhoisthedefendantinpossessionproceedingsintheCountyCourtandwhoclaimsthatitwouldbeincompatiblewithhisarticle8Conventionrightsforhimtobeputoutofhishomemustbeabletorelyonthoserightsindefendingthoseproceedings. 18

LordNeubergerreferredtotheviewthatitwouldonlybeinexcep-tionalcasesthatarticle8proportionalitywouldevenarguablygivearightforanoccupanttoremaininpossessionwheretherewasnosuch rightunder domestic law.19 However, he stated that consid-erationofproportionalityargumentsshouldnotbelimitedtovery

highlyexceptionalcases.Itwouldbebothunsafeandunhelpfultoinvokeexceptionalityasaguide....[E]xceptionalityisanoutcomeandnotaguide.20Thefactthattheauthorityisentitledtopossessionandshould,intheabsenceofcogentevidencetothecontrary,beassumedtobeactinginaccordancewithitsduties,willbeastrongfactorinsupportoftheproportionalityofmakinganorderforpos-session.21Hecontinuedbystatinginvirtuallyeverycasewherearesidentialoccupierhasnocontractualorstatutoryprotection,and

thelocalauthorityisentitledtopossessionasamatterofdomesticlaw,therewillbeaverystrongcaseforsayingthatmakinganorderforpossessionwouldbeproportionate.However,insomecasestheremaybefactorswhichwouldtelltheotherway.22

InPowell,HallandFrisby,LordHopesaidThethresholdforrais-inganarguablecaseonproportionality[is]ahighonewhichwould

17 [2011]UKSC8at[3].

18 [2010]UKSC45at[78].

19 SeeegMcCann v UK47EHRR913,para54;Kay v UK(Appno37341/06),para73.20 [2010]UKSC45at[51].

21 [2010]UKSC45at[53].

22 [2010]UKSC45at[54]. 10


12/16

De


teMarch2011

www.lag.org.u

k/DPP7


succeed in only a smallproportion of cases.23 [There] will be noneed,intheoverwhelmingmajorityofcases,forthelocalauthoritytoexplainandjustifyitsreasonsforseekingapossessionorder.24

InPinnock,theSupremeCourtdeclinedtogivefurtherguidance,statingThewideimplicationsoftheobligationtoconsiderthepro-portionalityofmakingapossessionorderarebestlefttothegoodsenseandexperienceofjudgessittingintheCountyCourt.25

How much wider is a proportionality defence thana conventional administrative law defence?

Oneofthekeydifferencesbetweenthehumanrightsdefencede-scribed in this Chapter and the public law defence (described inChapter25)isthatconventionaljudicialreviewandadministrativelawdefencesfocusuponthedecision-makingprocessandthepro-cedurefollowedbytheclaimant.However,humanrightsorpropor-tionalitydefencesfocusuponoutcomes.AsLordBinghamsaidinR (Begum) v Denbigh High School Governors26 whatmattersinanycaseisthepracticaloutcome,notthequalityofthedecision-making

processthatledtoit.27

Inahumanrightsdefencethecourtisdecidingforitselfonthefactsasagreed(orasfoundattrial)whetherthemakingofapossessionorderwouldbeproportionate.Inapubliclawdefencethecourtissimplydecidingwhethertheclaimislawfullybroughttothecourtbytheclaimant.

There is no doubt that themerits of the personal circumstancesof the occupants will be important in human rightsdefences. In

Pinnock,LordNeubergersaidthatthesubmissionsthatproportion-ality ismore likely to be a relevant issueinrespectof occupantswhoarevulnerableasaresultofmentalillness,physicalorlearningdisability,poorhealthorfrailty,andthattheissuemayalsorequirethe localauthority toexplainwhy theyarenotsecuringalternativeaccommodationinsuchcasesseemedtobewellmade.28

23 [2011]UKSC8at[35].Seetoo[92].

24 [2011]UKSC8at[37].Seetoo[88].

25 [2010]UKSC45at[57].26 [2006]UKHL15,(2007)1AC100

27 [2006]UKHL15at[31].

28 [2010]UKSC45at[64]. 11


13/16

De


teMarch2011

www.lag.org.u

k/DPP7


However,occupantsdefendingpossessionclaimsmaywellbeabletorelyonbothtraditionaladministrativelawgroundsinapubliclawdefenceandproportionalityargumentsinahumanrightsdefence.Ifthathappens,courtswillhavetoconsiderboththedecisionmaking

processbytheclaimantandtheoccupantspersonalcircumstances.

In what kind of cases will human rights orproportionality defences succeed?

Thefollowingarepossiblesituationsinwhichadefencemightsuc-ceed depending upon the particular factual circumstances of the

defendantscase.(a)MrandMrsAarejointtenants.MrsAisblameless.MrAleaves

thepremisesandeitheroutofspiteorbecausehedoesnotwanttocontinuetobeliableforrent,heservesanoticetoquit,termi-natingthetenancy.Perhapsthelandlordencourageshimtoservea notice. The former landlord then brings a possession claimagainstMrsA.

(b)AcouncilgrantsatenancytoMrB.Helivesintheatuntilhe

dies.Hiswifesucceedstothetenancybutshetoodies.Thecoun-cilthenservesanoticetoquit.MrBssonwhohaslivedinthepropertyfor50yearshasnostatutoryrighttosucceedandfacesaclaimforpossession.

(c)MsCisasoletenant,livinginpremiseswithher20-year-oldson.He has never lived anywhere else. She abandons the tenancy,leavinghiminoccupation.Theclaimantservesnoticetoquitandbringsapossessionclaim.

(d)AhousingassociationbringsapossessionclaimagainstMrD,an assured tenant, under mandatory Ground 8 Housing Act1988.MrDdefendssayinghehasahousingbenetclaimwhichthroughnofaultofhisownhasnotyetbeendetermined.Ifitisgranted,thehousingbenetwillclearthearrears. 29(OrahousingassociationseekspossessiononthesamefactsagainstanassuredshortholdrelyinguponaHousingAct1988s21notice.)

(e)MsE,anelderlyoccupier,isterminallyill(orabouttoundergomajorsurgery)buttheclaimantseeksimmediatepossession.

29 SeeNorth British Housing Association Limited v Matthews [2004]EWCACiv1736;[2005]1WLR3133 12


14/16

De


teMarch2011

www.lag.org.u

k/DPP7


What is the test to be applied when county courtjudges initially consider whether to dispose ofpublic law defences summarily?

InPinnock,LordNeubergerstated:

Ifanarticle8pointisraised,thecourtshouldinitiallyconsideritsummarily,andif,aswillnodoubtoftenbethecase,thecourtissatisedthat,evenifthefactsreliedonaremadeout,thepointwouldnotsucceed,itshouldbedismissed.Onlyifthecourtissatisedthatitcouldaffecttheorderthatthecourtmightmakeshouldthepointbefurtherentertained.30

InPowell,HallandFrisby,LordHopesaidacourtshouldinitially

consider[thatquestion]summarilyandifitissatisedthat,evenifthefactsrelieduponaremadeout,thepointwouldnotsucceed,itshouldbedismissed.31

Whatthenisthetestforsummarydisposal?TheSupremeCourtinPinnock appeartohavetakenthereferencetosummarydisposalfromtheECtHRdecisioninMcCannv UKwheretheyreferredtooccupantsraisinganarguablecasewhichwouldrequireacourttoexaminetheissue; in the greatmajority of cases, anorder forpossession could

continuetobemadeinsummaryproceedings.32InFrisby, HallandPowell,counselfortheSecretaryofStatearguedthatregardshouldbehadtoCPR55.8(2)whethertheclaimisgenuinelydisputedongroundswhichappeartobesubstantial.Ontheotherhand,CPRRule24.2(Groundsforsummaryjudgment)providesthatThecourtmaygivesummaryjudgmentagainstaclaimantordefendantonthewholeofaclaimoronaparticularissueif(a)itconsiders(ii)thatdefend-anthasnorealprospectofsuccessfullydefendingtheclaimorissue.

Itmaybethatthereislittledifferencebetweenthetwotests.

Whatfacts should county court judges consider?

InPinnock,LordNeubergersaid

EurCtHRjurisprudencerequiresthecourtconsideringsuchachal-lengetohavethepowertomakeitsownassessmentofanyrelevantfactswhichareindispute.[73]

30 [2010]UKSC45at[61].

31 [2011]UKSC8at[34].Seetoo[92].

32 (2008)47EHRRatpara54. 13


15/16

De


teMarch2011

www.lag.org.u

k/DPP7 Whereitisrequiredinordertogiveeffecttoanoccupiersarticle8

Conventionrights,thecourtspowersofreviewcan,inanappropri-atecase,extendtoreconsideringforitselfthefactsfoundbyalocalauthority, or indeed to considering facts which have arisen sincetheissueofproceedings,byhearingevidenceandformingitsownview.[74]

aCountyCourtjudgewhoisinvitedtomakeanorderforpossessionagainstademotedtenantcan considerwhether itisproportion-atetomaketheordersought,andcaninvestigateanddetermineanyissuesoffactrelevantforthepurposeofthatexercise.[para104]

However,sincealocalauthoritysaiminwantingpossessionshouldbeagiven,whichdoesnothavetobeexplainedorjustiedincourt,[t]hecourtwillonlybeconcernedwiththeoccupierspersonalcir-cumstances.[53]

Inthelightofthesepronouncements,ifadefenceisraisedandisnotdismissedsummarily,thecourtmustdetermineanydisputedfactualissues.

InPowell,HallandFrisby,inrelationtointroductorytenancies,LordHopestatedat[53]thatthecourtspowersofreviewcan,inanappro-priate case, extend to reconsidering for itself the facts found by a

localauthority,orindeedtoconsideringthefactswhichhavearisensincetheissueofproceedings,byhearingevidenceandformingitsownview.

What, if any, is the effect ofPinnockand Powellonlandlords other than local authorities?

InPinnock, LordNeubergerstatedthatthecourtsobservationsrelat-ingtolocalauthoritylandlordsappliedequallytoothersocialland-lordstotheextentthattheyarepublicauthoritiesundertheHumanRights Act 1998, but nothing in the judgment applied to privatelandowners.So,inviewofR (Weaver) v London & Quadrant HousingTrust,33ifahousingassociationorotherPRPSHisapublicauthorityallthatissaidinPinnock, Powell, Halland Frisbyappliesequallytoit.Seefurtherparagraphs26.14andfollowinginthischapter.

33 [2009]EWCACiv587,[2010]1WLR363. 14



16/16

De


teMarch2011

www.lag.org.u

k/DPP7 What about Housing Act 1980 s89?

InPinnock,LordNeubergersaidthatHousingAct1980s89(whichinmanycaseslimitstheperiodforwhichapossessionordercanbe

postponedlimitedto14daysunlessexceptionalhardshipwhen42days)andsomeoftheprovisionsofCPR55,whichappeartoman-dateasummaryprocedureinsometypesofpossessionclaim,maypresent difculties in relation to caseswhere article 8 claims areraised.

However,theSupremeCourtlaterconsideredHousingAct1980s89inPowell, Hall and Frisby.NotwithstandingwhatwassaidinPinnock,itstatedthatnoevidencehadbeenputbeforeittoshowthatinprac-

ticethemaximumperiodofsixweekswasinsufcienttomeettheneedsofcasesofexceptionalhardship.[Any]readingdownofthesectiontoenablethecourttopostponetheexecutionofanorderforpossessionofadwelling-housewhichwasnotletonasecuretenancyforalongerperiodthanthestatutorymaximumwouldgowellbe-yondwhat[HumanRightsAct1998]section3(1)permits.34

However,section89doesnottakeawayfromthecourtitsordinarypowersofcasemanagement.Itwouldbeperfectlyproperforit,for

example,todefermakingtheorderforpossessionpendinganappealortoenableproceedingstobebroughtin theadministrativecourtwhichmightresultinandingthatitwasnotlawfulforapossessionordertobemade.35

Whatthenifalocalauthorityseekspossessionagainstaterminallyillnon-secureoccupantwhoislikelytodieinsixmonthstime?Beforending decidingwhetheror not theclaimant is entitled to apos-sessionorder,thecourtmaybeabletoadjourn.However,ifatrial

hastakenplace,itseemsthatthecourthaslimitedoptionseitherndingthatitisdisproportionatetomakeapossessionorderatallanddismissingtheclaimorndingthattheclaimantisentitledtopossessionandthatitisproportionatetomakeapossessionordertotakeeffectinsixweeks(assumingexceptionalhardship).

34 [2011]UKSC8at[62].

35 [2011]UKSC8at[63].

15


Jan Luba QC, John Gallagher, Derek McConnell and Nic Madge 2011.Defending possession proceedings, 7th edition, is available at www.lag.org.uk/books

defending possesion proceedings

Documents