London Borough of Harrow (Appellants V. Qazi (FC) (Respondent)

Whether premises are a person's home under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a factual question. Domestic title is not decisive; continuous occupation and sufficient links may establish a home after a tenancy has ended.

By a majority, the House held that article 8 does not defeat an owner's unqualified contractual and proprietary right to possession after a joint tenancy has been validly terminated by one tenant. In that situation, possession is necessary to protect the owner's rights and the county court need not undertake a separate, case-specific proportionality inquiry. A challenge to the public authority's underlying allocation or possession decision belongs, if available, in judicial review.

London Borough of Harrow v Qazi concerned a council house let to the respondent and his former wife as joint secure tenants. The former wife served a valid notice to quit, which terminated the entire tenancy. The council refused the respondent a sole tenancy and sought possession after he remained in occupation.

The county court held that the premises ceased to be his home when his legal and equitable rights ended, and made a possession order. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal in [2001] EWCA Civ 1834; [2002] HLR 276 and remitted the case for consideration of justification under article 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central questions were whether the premises remained his home and whether article 8 required a separate proportionality inquiry before possession could be ordered.

1. Appeal allowed by a majority of three to two. Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Millett and Lord Scott of Foscote held that no further article 8 inquiry was required. The Court of Appeal's remittal was set aside and the county court's possession order restored.

2. Meaning of “home”. All five Law Lords agreed that the premises remained the respondent's home for article 8 purposes. Lord Hope, Lord Millett and Lord Scott treated “home” as an autonomous, factual concept. It does not depend on a legal or equitable interest under domestic law. Continuous occupation and sufficient links were established notwithstanding termination of the tenancy.

3. Unqualified right to possession. Lord Hope held that article 8 was applicable and that eviction affected the respondent's enjoyment of his home. Nevertheless, where domestic law gave the landlord an unqualified right to possession after a joint tenant's valid notice to quit, article 8(2) was satisfied. The interference was lawful and necessary to protect the landlord's rights. The county court therefore had no proportionality issue to decide.

   Lord Millett reasoned that no balancing exercise was required where its outcome was a foregone conclusion. The respondent's occupation had always been circumscribed by the tenancy's terms. Enforcing those terms did not display a want of respect for his home. Lord Scott similarly held that article 8 could not create possessory rights or diminish the owner's contractual and proprietary entitlement.

4. Public-law challenge. Lord Millett and Lord Scott emphasised that a local authority's decisions to refuse a new tenancy or seek possession could, where properly arguable and brought in time, be challenged by judicial review. No such challenge had been made. Article 8 did not give the county court an independent discretion which the governing housing law withheld.

5. Dissent. Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Lord Steyn would have dismissed the appeal. They considered that possession proceedings brought by a public authority against a person's home ordinarily interfere with the article 8 right and therefore require justification under article 8(2). They would have retained the Court of Appeal's remittal, while recognising that refusal of possession would be justified only in very exceptional cases.

1. House of Lords: By a majority of three to two, allowed the council's appeal, set aside the remittal and restored the county court's possession order: [2003] UKHL 43.
2. Court of Appeal: Allowed the respondent's appeal and remitted the case to the county court to determine justification under article 8(2): [2001] EWCA Civ 1834; [2002] HLR 276.
3. Watford County Court sitting at Luton: Mr Recorder Williamson held that the premises were no longer the respondent's home because his legal and equitable rights had ended, and made a possession order.