Does a judge have to consider Article 8 in possession proceedings brought by a private landlord? – Millie Polimac

25 August 2016 by

Image result for front doors terrace guardian

Photo credit: the Guardian

No, said the Supreme Court in McDonald v McDonald [2016] UKSC 28 – read judgment.


Fiona McDonald was a private sector tenant.  The landlords were her parents who had purchased the property by obtaining a secured loan from a private company.  They fell into arrears of the monthly payments, and the company sought possession pursuant to a s.21(4) Housing Act 1988 (‘HA 1988’) notice. The arrears were not substantial, but they had persisted for some time.

An Article 8 defence was raised as Fiona had mental health problems in the form of psychiatric and behavioural issues.

The Supreme Court rejected her defence for the following reasons.

No Article 8 assessment

The appellant argued that the court, as a public authority under s.6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA 1998’), was required to carry out an Article 8 assessment in such circumstances.

The Supreme Court thought that a private sector tenant was in a weaker position than a public sector one because the former had proprietary rights under Article 1, Protocol 1 of the Convention (‘A1P1’), which had to be balanced against the tenant’s Article 8 rights.

The Justices distinguished restraint of publishing cases where the courts frequently carried out a balancing exercise between Articles 8 and 10.  Those arose from tortious or quasi-tortious relationships where the legislature had expressly, impliedly or through inaction left the courts to carry out the balancing exercise.

In contrast, the present dispute arose from a contractual relationship and the legislature had prescribed how the parties’ respective Convention rights were to be respected. According to the Court the balance was struck by: (i) the Protection of Eviction Act 1977 which precludes eviction without a court order; (ii) s.89 of the Housing Act 1980 which allows the court to postpone possession for up to a maximum period of 6 weeks in cases of exceptional hardship, and (iii) Chapters I and IV of the Housing Act 1988 which required a valid notice under s.7 or s.21 to be served and a court order to be made before the landlord could obtain possession, as well as damages for those who are unlawfully evicted or harassed.

The Court said that to hold otherwise would have a series of undesirable effects:

  • It would mean that the Convention was in effect directly enforceable between private citizens so as to alter their contractual rights and obligations, which was contrary to the Convention’s purpose.
  • The landlord’s A1P1 rights would be interfered with in an unpredictable way. It could also mean that the landlord would suffer financial loss without compensation, for example, if execution of the possession order was delayed significantly meaning the landlord could not sell his property with vacant possession.

The Court then carried out an assessment of the Strasbourg jurisprudence, but it concluded that there was no clear and authoritative guidance from Strasbourg to change its analysis.

First, the Justices considered 2 cases against the UK where the European Commission on Human Rights held that Article 8 was not engaged due to the exclusively private relationship between the parties.  In Di Palma (1986) a court had granted possession to a private landlord who had forfeited a long lease.  In Wood (1997) the same conclusion was reached in respect of a mortgagor who could not raise Article 8 against a private sector mortgagee where there was a failure to pay instalments due.

The Justices then considered subsequent case-law but distinguished the cases:

Zehentner v Austria (2009) was distinguished on the basis that the case concerned the enforcement of a debt (through an order for sale) and not the enforcement of a landlord’s right to possession. There were no procedural safeguards, and the applicant had not been afforded the opportunity to pay off the creditors.

  • Zrilic v Croatia (2013) was distinguished since the court had powers to partition land and order its sale, which was different to a court which was merely enforcing contractual rights between private parties and was subject to specific legislative protective provisions while doing so.
  • Brezec v Croatia (2014) was distinguished on the basis that the landlord had previously been a state-owned company, which the ECtHR thought was highly relevant.
  • Mustafa v Sweden (2008) involved a finding of a breach of Article 10 in a case where a possession order was made against tenants who had installed a satellite dish and in so doing breached a covenant. The appellants in the present case argued that this showed that Article 10 could be invoked to vary the contractual rights between private parties.  However, the Justices disagreed. They distinguished Mustafa on the basis that Sweden had failed to enact legislation to satisfy the protection of Article 10 rights and the court, therefore, had to be able to give effect to such rights despite the terms of the relevant contract.

The Court, therefore, concluded that, although the ECtHR jurisprudence showed some support for the notion that Article 8 may be engaged against a private landlord, there was no support for the proposition that the judge could be required to consider the proportionality of the order which he would make under the Housing Act 1988.

Not possible to read s.21(4) compatibly

The observations concerning the second question were obiter given the Court’s findings on Article 8.  However, the court thought it was important to address the point as the question of whether to read legislation compatibly under s.3 HRA 1998 or to strike it down as incompatible under s.4 HRA 1998 was one that was relevant to many cases.

The main argument advanced by the appellant was that s.21(4) could be read compatibly, notwithstanding the mandatory language used because the court had managed to do so in Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45 and Powell [2011] UKSC 8 where the wording of the statutory provisions was also expressed in mandatory terms.

The Court held that it was not possible to apply the same approach to the present situation.  First, there were differences between public and private tenancies since the public landlord was obliged to act compatibly with the Convention and comply with general principles of public law, whereas the private landlord was not.  Second, unlike the mechanical process in s.21(4), the relevant legislative provisions in Pinnock were reasons-based processes as the notice required the landlord to give reasons for why it was serving the notice.  Third, although there were constraints on the private landlord’s freedom of action, such as in the Equality Act 2010 provisions prohibiting discriminatory treatment, those were laid down in statute or statutory instruments.  Finally, the Court held that to interpret the legislation in that way would be inconsistent with the scheme of the legislation which was to stimulate re-growth of the private rented sector and increase the supply of homes available to rent.

Not disproportionate to make a possession order

Finally, the Court addressed the first instance judge’s comments that, if Article 8 was relevant, he would have found this a case where he considered the balance should be struck in favour of the appellant.  The Justices took the opportunity to highlight the exceptional nature of the Article 8 defence, and that the court had other options than to dismiss the claim, namely, exercising their discretion as to when the possession order would be made, subject to the six-week maximum.


McDonald is the latest authority on the interaction between proprietary and human rights and closes the questions left open after Pinnock.  It shows the courts’ deference to the legislature in ECHR cases and the reluctance of the judiciary to get involved in carrying out any exercise which requires the balancing of rights, particularly when there is underlying legislation.  It will take some authoritative Strasbourg jurisprudence to change it, or a challenge to the legislation itself as being incompatible with Article 8 in the way that it strikes the balance.  The latter is not likely to bear fruit given Poplar Housing v Donoghue [2001] EWCA Civ 595 which previously held that s.21 HA 1988 is compatible with Article 8.

There are undoubtedly some deserving cases in the private sector where the tenant’s Article 8 rights are under severe threat and the landlord’s A1P1 rights are not.  To account for those cases the Court could have taken the same limited approach as in Pinnock and held that the court had the power to assess proportionality, albeit in “very highly exceptional cases”.  Indeed, it seems that Shelter was arguing for such a limited power.

However, the Court appears to have stuck to the maxim that “hard cases make bad law” and chose certainty over allowing Article 8 to be used.

Perhaps there was no need to be so cautious, since statistics provided by Shelter showed that it was Article 8 defences against public authorities in possession proceedings hardly, if ever, succeeded, save in combination with some other public law factor.  Those public law factors would not be utilised in possession claims against private landlords, and so it is likely that Article 8 defences would only be useful in a few deserving cases.

Yet the outcome is understandable in a housing crisis.  The court supported its reasoning by citing the government policy in passing the Housing Act 1988, which was to improve the housing crisis by encouraging private landlords to let their properties.

Concerning the obiter comments that it was not possible to read s.21(4) compatibly, the Court’s reasoning seems to be again based on the distinction between public and private landlords.  It is not clear why this is relevant to the question of whether reading the section compatibly amounts to “interpretation” or an “amendment” of the legislation.  More convincing is the Court’s focus on the underlying scheme of the legislation, and a re-iteration of Lord Rodger’s comments in Ghaidan [2004] UKHL 30, on when the court can imply words into legislation.

Millie Polimac is a barrister at Five Paper.


  1. Dan Smith says:

    Read…we don’t want the competition and we’re going to rip your parents off.

  2. It’s an amazing case given that the landlords were here parents.

  3. […] Does a judge have to consider Article 8 in possession proceedings brought by a private landlord? [UK Human Rights Blog] […]

  4. tureksite says:

    “it is likely that Article 8 defences would only be useful in a few deserving cases”

    People at risk of losing their homes will inevitably think their case is deserving. The potential for unfairness to landlords is sufficiently demonstrated by this straightforward possession case having gone this far.

    It also shows how misguided the House of Lords was when it weakened the obligation to give security for costs in 1998 and how wrong the Supreme Court was when it all but abolished it. I make no bones about my opinion that every appeal (except by a public body) to the CA or the SC should require securith in the form of an insurance bond.

  5. truthaholics says:

    Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    “However, the Court appears to have stuck to the maxim that “hard cases make bad law” and chose certainty over allowing Article 8 to be used.”

  6. r1xlx says:

    Failure to pay rent by anyone is no excuse as all in UK get adequate housing benefit.
    This situation and case would not have arisen if housing benefit was paid direct to landlords.
    A side benefit of direct payment would be checking rental and tax avoidance fiddles.

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.




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 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 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 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


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: