Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles


Sep 29, 2018, 17:10 PM
Slug : mccann-v-uk
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 23, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87189

(European Court of Human Rights; 13 May 2008)

The husband had been evicted from his local authority home under the summary procedure available to a landlord if one joint tenant serves notice to quit. The husband complained that the eviction proceedings, brought in accordance with the authoritys domestic violence policy, had breached his human rights. In particular the husband alleged that in asking his ex-wife to sign a notice to quit, thereby ending the couples joint tenancy of the authority property and terminating the husbands right to remain in the property with immediate effect, the authority had given no consideration to his relationship with his children, who stayed with him 3 nights a week.

Any person at risk of losing his home, which was a most extreme form of interference with the right to respect for ones home, should be able to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal, even if under domestic law the right of occupation had come to an end. If the authority had sought to evict the husband in accordance with the statutory scheme relating to secure tenants, it would have had to apply for a possession order, and the husband could then have asked the court to consider his circumstances, including the need to provide accommodation for his children and whether his wife had in reality left the house because of domestic violence. In the course of the procedure the authority had in fact chosen to follow, the authority had not given any consideration to the husbands right to respect for his home and the ensuing possession proceedings or judicial review proceedings had not provided any opportunity for an independent tribunal to examine whether the husbands loss of his home had been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from