Manchester City Council v Pinnock
A court considering possession proceedings against a local authority tenant must be able to consider the proportionality of eviction, following Strasbourg case law.
Facts
Mr Pinnock had lived in a council house in Manchester for over 30 years. After his partner and children were involved in serious anti social behaviour and crime, the council began proceedings to demote his secure tenancy and then to obtain possession of the house. Under the statutory scheme for demoted tenancies, the county court had to grant possession if the council had followed the correct procedure. Mr Pinnock argued that he was entitled to have the court consider whether eviction was a proportionate interference with his right to respect for his home under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Earlier House of Lords decisions had held that this was not generally required, but the European Court of Human Rights had taken a different view.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court, sitting as a panel of nine, held that a court considering a claim for possession of a person's home by a local authority must be able to consider whether the order would be proportionate, and that the statutory provisions could be read to allow this. Lord Neuberger said that the court is not bound to follow every decision of the European Court of Human Rights, but where there is a clear and constant line of decisions whose effect is not inconsistent with some fundamental substantive or procedural aspect of our law, and whose reasoning does not appear to overlook or misunderstand some argument or point of principle, it would be wrong not to follow that line. In Mr Pinnock's case, the possession order was proportionate, given the serious anti social behaviour.
Related cases on Human Rights Act 1998
- A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, [2005] 2 AC 68
- Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, [2004] 1 AC 546
- Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21, [2003] 2 AC 467
- Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557
- Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2006) 42 EHRR 41
- R (AB) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] UKSC 28
- R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, [2008] 1 AC 153
- R (Begum) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15, [2007] 1 AC 100
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
