Manchester v Romano & Anor

Manchester v Romano & Anor

The court held that, even if the tenants were disabled persons under the DDA, the landlords' actions in seeking possession were justified under section 24(3) as necessary to avoid endangering the health of neighbours, and that the trial judges' findings on the medical evidence and causation were not perverse. The appeals were dismissed as the requirements for unlawful discrimination were not met, and justification was established.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Council of the City of Manchester; Defendant/first Appellant: Sharon Romano; Defendant/second Appellant: Yvonne Samari
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Possession Proceedings, Justification Defence, Mental Impairment, Reasonableness in Possession Orders
Housing Law Disability Law Anti Social Behaviour Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Possession Proceedings Justification Defence Mental Impairment Reasonableness in Possession Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Council of the City of Manchester

Claimant/respondent

Sharon Romano

Defendant/first Appellant

Yvonne Samari

Defendant/second Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the eviction of secure tenants suffering from mental impairment constituted unlawful disability discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA)
  2. 2 Whether the landlords' actions were justified under section 24(3) of the DDA
  3. 3 Whether the tenants were 'disabled persons' within the meaning of the DDA

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, even if the tenants were disabled persons under the DDA, the landlords' actions in seeking possession were justified under section 24(3) as necessary to avoid endangering the health of neighbours, and that the trial judges' findings on the medical evidence and causation were not perverse. The appeals were dismissed as the requirements for unlawful discrimination were not met, and justification was established.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Possession orders against Sharon Romano and Yvonne Samari affirmed
  • No order for suspension of warrants of possession