판결 이유
Article 8 proportionality does not provide a defence to possession proceedings brought by a private sector landlord. The statutory scheme under the Housing Act 1988, which grants a mandatory right to possession on expiry of a section 21 notice, strikes a fair balance between the rights of landlords and tenants.
사실관계
The McDonalds were tenants of a property owned by their parents, which was subject to a mortgage. After the parents defaulted, receivers appointed by the mortgagee served a section 21 notice seeking possession. The daughter, who had mental health difficulties, argued that Article 8 required the court to assess proportionality before making a possession order.
판결 요약
The Supreme Court held that Article 8 does not enable a court to refuse to make a possession order in proceedings brought by a private sector landlord under section 21. The court distinguished Pinnock, which concerned public authorities. The legislative framework of the Housing Act 1988 represents Parliament's assessment of the fair balance between private landlord and tenant rights, and there is no basis for the court to conduct a proportionality assessment.
주요 인용문
"Where the legislature has struck the balance between the Article 8 rights of residential tenants and the Article 1 Protocol 1 rights of private sector landlords, it is not for the courts to upset that balance."
— Lord Neuberger and Lady Hale
후속 처리
Confirmed the distinction between public and private sector landlords regarding Article 8 proportionality defences.
The decision has been debated in the context of proposed reforms to the private rental sector and the abolition of section 21 notices.