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.




7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 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 birds directive 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 circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics 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 european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination 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: