Human rights don't impact on residential private landlords' rights for possession
This article was produced by Nabarro LLP, which joined CMS on 1 May 2017.
he Supreme Court has today handed down its judgment in the landmark decision of McDonald v McDonald [2016] confirming that human rights will not interfere with private residential possession claims.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (i.e. the right to respect for one's home) can not be used to resist a possession order sought by private residential landlords under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.
The Supreme Court made it clear that the purpose of the Convention was to protect citizens from having their rights infringed by the state, not to alter private contractual rights. Where Parliament had decided the proper balance between the interests of private sector landlords and residential tenants, it was not open for tenants to alter those rights using Article 8. In reaching their conclusion, the Supreme Court noted that there was no clear authority from the European Court which would require a contrary decision.
The decision will be a relief for private landlords of residential property who remain unfettered in their ability to recover possession of their properties using section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.
