Facts
Mr Qazi and his wife held a joint council tenancy. His wife served a notice to quit and left. Her notice brought the joint tenancy to an end. The council declined to grant Mr Qazi a new tenancy and obtained a possession order. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal, and the council appealed to the House of Lords.
Issue
Could the property still be Mr Qazi’s home for Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights? If so, could Article 8 defeat the council’s right to possession under domestic law?
Decision
The House of Lords accepted that the property could be his home for Article 8 purposes. That question depended on his factual connection with the property. The loss of a legal or equitable interest did not itself end that connection.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
By a three-to-two majority, the House allowed the council’s appeal. The majority held that Article 8 did not provide a defence to the council’s claim where it had an unqualified right to possession under domestic law. Lords Bingham and Steyn dissented.
Reported citations: [2004] 1 AC 983, [2004] AC 983, [2003] 3 WLR 792, [2003] 4 All ER 461, [2003] UKHRR 974, [2004] L & TR 9, [2003] Fam Law 875, [2003] 2 FLR 973, [2003] HLR 75, [2003] HRLR 40, [2003] NPC 101, [2004] 1 P & CR 19, [2003] 3 FCR 43, [2003] 3 EGLR 109
Source: Full judgment
