Thurrock Borough Council v West

A lawful claim by a local authority to recover housing from an occupier without contractual or statutory protection will ordinarily be proportionate under article 8. The authority’s ownership rights, housing-management duties and the legislative limits on succession carry substantial weight.

An article 8 defence must be pleaded with sufficient particularity and must present a seriously arguable case. The court should determine that threshold summarily at the earliest opportunity. Ordinary features of housing need, including limited means, parenthood, local connections, good conduct and emotional ties to the property, do not ordinarily satisfy it.

The Council sought possession of a three-bedroom house after the death of the secure tenant. Her grandson lived there with his partner and young child but had never received a tenancy or licence from the Council. A previous statutory succession meant that he could not succeed to the tenancy.

The Basildon County Court dismissed the possession claim, holding that eviction would be disproportionate under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Council appealed. The central issue was whether the pleaded circumstances reached the threshold of a seriously arguable article 8 defence.

1. Appeal allowed. The article 8 defence did not reach the threshold of being reasonably arguable. It should have been dismissed summarily at the earliest opportunity.

2. A local-authority occupier may defend a possession claim by showing that eviction would be a disproportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. A disproportionate possession order would infringe the right to respect for the home and would be unlawful under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The threshold is nevertheless high and will be met in only a small proportion of otherwise lawful possession cases.

3. Local-authority housing is a limited public resource held for the whole community. An authority is better equipped than the court to decide how that resource should be allocated and managed. Its lawful entitlement to possession, coupled with the presumption that it is performing its duties properly, strongly supports proportionality without requiring further explanation. The statutory restriction on succession under the Housing Act 1985 supplied an additional and important policy consideration.

4. An article 8 defence must be pleaded and sufficiently particularised to show a seriously arguable case. Unless there is good reason to proceed differently, the court must assess that question summarily at the earliest opportunity, assuming that the pleaded facts are true. A defence which fails the threshold must be struck out or dismissed so that further resources are not expended upon it.

5. Limited means, responsibility for a young child, good conduct, local connections and a long association with the property were ordinary features among households needing social housing. They were not comparable to vulnerability arising from mental illness, disability, poor health or frailty. The prospect of rehousing, and the fact that the three-bedroom property exceeded the family’s needs, further weakened the defence.

6. Where an occupier otherwise has no right to remain, an article 8 defence will not ordinarily justify an unlimited and unconditional right of occupation. A simple refusal of possession here would improperly displace the Council’s allocation function and effectively compel it to grant a tenancy contrary to the statutory succession policy.

Hallett LJ and Dame Janet Smith agreed with Etherton LJ.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the Council’s appeal and held that the article 8 defence should have been dismissed summarily.

2. Basildon County Court: District Judge Hodges dismissed the possession claim after concluding that eviction would be disproportionate under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.