Manchester City Council v Pinnock

The Supreme Court held that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires a domestic court, when asked to make an order for possession of a person’s home at the suit of a public authority, to be able to assess whether eviction would be "necessary in a democratic society" (ie proportionate) and, where necessary to that assessment, to resolve disputed questions of fact. The Court concluded that section 143D(2) of the Housing Act 1996 must, if possible, be read compatibly with the Human Rights Act 1998 so as not to prevent the County Court from performing that Article 8 assessment and hearing evidence if required. The Court further held that section 6(2) of the Human Rights Act did not permit a local authority to disregard Article 8 when deciding to bring or continue possession proceedings. Applying those principles to the facts, the Supreme Court found that it was proportionate to make the possession order and dismissed the appeal.

Background and facts:

• Mr Pinnock was a long-standing council tenant. A county court Recorder made a demotion order in June 2007 after finding numerous incidents of anti-social behaviour by members of the household. The Council served a Notice under section 143E on 6 June 2008 and, after a review by a Council panel, issued possession proceedings. HHJ Holman made an outright order for possession on 22 December 2008. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Pinnock’s appeal ([2009] EWCA Civ 852). Mr Pinnock appealed to the Supreme Court.

Nature of the claim and relief sought:

• The appeal concerned a claim for possession of the family home brought by a local authority against a demoted tenant. The appellant argued that making an order for possession would violate his Article 8 rights and that the County Court had no power to determine proportionality or resolve disputed facts.

Issues framed by the Court:

1. Whether Article 8 requires a domestic court to be able to determine the proportionality of eviction and to resolve relevant factual disputes when a public authority seeks possession of a person’s home;
2. What practical consequences this has for possession proceedings generally;
3. Whether the demoted tenancy regime (in particular section 143D(2) of the Housing Act 1996) is compatible with Article 8;
4. Application of the above to the facts of this case.

Reasoning and holdings:

• The Court surveyed the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence (notably Connors, McCann and Kay v UK) and concluded that a person at risk of eviction by a public authority should in principle be able to have proportionality determined by an independent tribunal and that a purely conventional judicial review limited to Wednesbury-type review is inadequate where factual disputes of significance arise.
• Applying section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act, the Court interpreted section 143D(2) to permit the County Court to consider Article 8 proportionality and to resolve disputed facts when necessary to that assessment, rather than to require the tenant necessarily to bring separate High Court proceedings. Section 7 of the Human Rights Act allows the defendant to rely on Convention rights in the possession proceedings. Section 6(2) did not make it lawful for a local authority to disregard Convention values in deciding whether to bring or continue possession proceedings.
• The Court emphasised that the obligation principally applies to public authorities and did not decide whether the same applies when a private landowner seeks possession.
• On the facts, the Court concluded that, having afforded Mr Pinnock the procedural opportunity to raise Article 8, the eviction was proportionate given the extensive history of anti-social behaviour by household members, and the appeal was dismissed.

Wider implications:

• The Court noted that Article 8 arguments will be seldom successful where domestic law already requires the court to consider reasonableness (eg secure tenancies), but may have greater effect where domestic law otherwise gives an automatic right to possession. County Court procedure and some statutory time-limits may require review in light of this obligation.

The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that Article 8 requires a court asked to make a possession order at the suit of a public authority to be able to determine whether eviction would be proportionate and to resolve relevant factual disputes. Section 143D(2) of the Housing Act 1996 should be read compatibly with the Human Rights Act to permit the County Court to carry out that assessment. Applying those principles to the facts, eviction was proportionate and the possession order was upheld.

Proceedings began in Manchester County Court where a Recorder made a demotion order on 8 June 2007. The Council served a Notice under section 143E on 6 June 2008 and issued possession proceedings. HHJ Holman made an outright order for possession on 22 December 2008. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Pinnock’s appeal ([2009] EWCA Civ 852). The appeal to the Supreme Court was decided by a nine-judge panel ([2010] UKSC 45) which dismissed the appeal.