Dudley Metropolitan Council v Mailley [2023] EWCA Civ 1246 (27 October 2023)

Dudley Metropolitan Council v Mailley [2023] EWCA Civ 1246 (27 October 2023)

The Housing Act 1985 succession provisions do not unlawfully discriminate against the appellant under Article 14 ECHR. The appellant does not have a relevant 'other status' for Article 14 purposes, her situation is not analogous to comparators, and any difference in treatment is justified by legitimate aims of certainty and efficient allocation of scarce social housing. The legislative scheme cannot be read compatibly as appellant proposes.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Civ 1246
Parties
Respondent Claimant: Dudley Metropolitan Council; Appellant Defendant: Marilyn Mailley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Secure Tenancies, Succession Rights, Article 14 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Direct Discrimination, Legislative Interpretation
Housing Law Human Rights Law Discrimination Law Secure Tenancies Succession Rights Article 14 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Direct Discrimination +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dudley Metropolitan Council

Respondent Claimant

Marilyn Mailley

Appellant Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Housing Act 1985 succession provisions unlawfully discriminate under Article 14 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether appellant has relevant 'other status' for Article 14 purposes
  3. 3 Whether appellant's situation is analogous to other potential successors

Ratio Decidendi

The Housing Act 1985 succession provisions do not unlawfully discriminate against the appellant under Article 14 ECHR. The appellant does not have a relevant 'other status' for Article 14 purposes, her situation is not analogous to comparators, and any difference in treatment is justified by legitimate aims of certainty and efficient allocation of scarce social housing. The legislative scheme cannot be read compatibly as appellant proposes.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No declaration of incompatibility under section 4 Human Rights Act 1998
  • No compatible reading of section 87(b) Housing Act 1985