判决理由
Article 8 of the ECHR requires that any person at risk of being dispossessed of their home by a public authority must be able to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal, regardless of the type of tenancy held.
事实
Manchester City Council sought possession of a demoted tenancy held by Mr Pinnock under a mandatory ground for possession. Mr Pinnock argued that the court should be able to assess the proportionality of the possession order under Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for the home). Previous Court of Appeal authority (Kay v Lambeth; Doherty v Birmingham) held that proportionality review was not available in such cases.
判决摘要
The Supreme Court unanimously held that Article 8 requires courts to have the power to assess proportionality before ordering possession against a residential occupier by a public authority. The court departed from earlier restrictive approaches and held that proportionality must be available as a defence even in cases involving mandatory grounds for possession, though it would only succeed in highly exceptional cases.
关键引述
"If our law is to be compatible with Article 8, where a court is asked to make an order for possession of a person's home at the suit of a local authority, the court must have the power to assess the proportionality of making the order."
— Lord Neuberger
"The suggestions that proportionality would be raised in only a small proportion of cases, and would succeed in even fewer, appear to be well-founded."
— Lord Neuberger
后续处理
The leading authority on Article 8 proportionality in public sector possession proceedings.
Extended to private sector registered providers in R (CN) v Lewisham LBC [2014] and Hounslow LBC v Powell [2011].