Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth [2002] EWCA Civ 271 (6th March, 2002)

Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth [2002] EWCA Civ 271 (6th March, 2002)

Mr Michalak was not entitled to succeed to the tenancy because he did not fall within the exhaustive statutory definition of 'member of the tenant's family' in section 113 of the Housing Act 1985. The statutory scheme, including its limitation on succession, was objectively justified and compatible with Articles 8 and 14 ECHR. The making of a possession order did not require individual proportionality assessment, as the statutory framework itself provided sufficient justification for interference with Article 8 rights.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 271
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Jan Michalak; Respondent/claimant: London Borough of Wandsworth; Intervener: Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Wandsworth County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Succession to Tenancy, Statutory Interpretation, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home), Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of Discrimination), Compatibility of Domestic Law With ECHR, Possession Proceedings
Housing Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Succession to Tenancy Statutory Interpretation Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home) Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of Discrimination) Compatibility of Domestic Law With ECHR +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 5 Authorities cited 34 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Michalak

Appellant/defendant

London Borough of Wandsworth

Respondent/claimant

Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Wandsworth County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Michalak was entitled to succeed to a secure tenancy under the Housing Act 1985 as a 'member of the tenant's family'
  2. 2 Whether the statutory definition of 'family' in the Housing Act 1985 is compatible with Articles 8 and 14 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the making of a possession order infringed Mr Michalak's rights under the Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Michalak was not entitled to succeed to the tenancy because he did not fall within the exhaustive statutory definition of 'member of the tenant's family' in section 113 of the Housing Act 1985. The statutory scheme, including its limitation on succession, was objectively justified and compatible with Articles 8 and 14 ECHR. The making of a possession order did not require individual proportionality assessment, as the statutory framework itself provided sufficient justification for interference with Article 8 rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Possession order against Mr Michalak affirmed
  • No order as to the council's money claim for damages for use and occupation (adjourned at first instance)