The felling of a tree might breach occupier’s right to respect for a home

25 April 2013 by

italocalvinoLane v Kensington & Chelsea Royal London Borough Council (19 April 2013) – extempore judgement by Sir Raymond Jack QBD 

In Italo Calvino’s charming short story “The Baron in the Trees” the twelve year old son of an aristocratic family escapes the stultifications of home decorum by climbing up a tree, never to come down again. He literally makes his home in the treetops of his vast family estate.

So perhaps we shouldn’t quarrel with the inclusion of a tree as part of the concept of home life for the purposes of Article 8. The further twist is that the felling of this particular tree took place on a property where the appellant lived without a tenancy. Nevertheless, this event still amounted to a potential interference with his right to a home under Article 8.

The following account of the case is based on the Lawtel summary (£) as the judgment is not available.

Mr Lane’s father had a tenancy for a property with the local authority which, after his death, had passed to the appellant’s mother. On expiry, she agreed a fresh tenancy and was granted a lifetime licence permitting her to use the property for residential purposes. The appellant continued to live in the property after his mother’s death without paying rent. He suffered from chronic obsessive compulsive disorder which was triggered by changes to his home. Issues arose between Mr Lane and his neighbour  in respect of a sizeable tree in the small rear garden, which had overhung the neighbour’s garden and damaged his property with its roots. The appellant was particularly fixated on the tree. The local authority made an order entitling the neighbour to fell the tree. The appellant commenced proceedings against the local authority and his neighbour to obtain an injunction preventing the felling. At a preliminary issues hearing, the judge found that the appellant had no proprietary interest in the property and lived there as a trespasser; he had no claim by reason of him suffering from the disorder; and he could not advance a claim on the basis that the order interfered with his Article 8 rights.

Mr Lane appealed against this decision, submitting that a tree was part of his home just as part of a house might be. The court allowed the appeal.

Reasoning behind the judgment

Sir Raymond first considered the question of whether the property could be said to be the appellant’s home, even though he did not have any proprietary rights in it. The judge below had not been addressed on how Article 8 should be approached in the circumstances and had proceeded on the basis that because the local authority was exercising a statutory right Mr Lane was not able to rely on Article 8  (Qazi v Harrow LBC [2003] UKHL 43). In this appeal, the court approached the issue on the basis that the property was the appellant’s home for the purposes of Article 8, which did not require a proprietary right.  A small garden was a part of the home, and, the felling of a tree was a potential interference with it. Therefore, the issue of proportionality had to be considered in the appellant’s case.  An interference with a tree was a much lesser interference with the home than, for example, the enforcement of a right to repossess. Consequently, if it were not for Mr Lane’s disorder, the issue of proportionality would be plainly unarguable. But the tree did have a particular importance to him and his well-being could be significantly affected by its removal. Having not seen the medical evidence, the instant court could not make a judgment on any detrimental effect to the appellant. The case was remitted to the judge below so that the Article 8 issue could be considered with regards to proportionality.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

3 comments


  1. Andrew says:

    Woodman, spare that tree . . .

  2. I’d have chopped the tree down and ignored the claimant – now this judgement has meant that slummy people can claim the filth around their homes is essential to their wellbeing.

  3. John Allman says:

    “the local authority was exercising a statutory right”

    Doesn’t that call for refusal of relief, and a declaration of incompatibility? Or would a statutory DUTY to fell the tree, rather than a mere right, be needed for that?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: