Sheffield City Council v Wall (Personal Representatives of) & Ors

Sheffield City Council v Wall (Personal Representatives of) & Ors

A foster child does not qualify as a 'child' for the purposes of succession to a secure tenancy under sections 87 and 113 of the Housing Act 1985, as the statutory definition is exhaustive and does not include foster children. The exclusion of foster children is objectively justified and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Wall was therefore not entitled to succeed to the tenancy or to possession against Mr and Mrs Ingham.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Sheffield City Council; Defendant/appellant: The Personal Representatives of June Wall; Defendant/appellant: Mr Steven Wall; Defendant/appellant: Mr Robert Ingham; Defendant/appellant: Mrs Theresa June Butler
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Succession to Tenancy, Secure Tenancy, Definition of Family, Discrimination, Concurrent Leases, Possession Proceedings
Land Law Housing Law Human Rights Succession to Tenancy Secure Tenancy Definition of Family Discrimination Concurrent Leases +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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheffield City Council

Claimant/respondent

The Personal Representatives of June Wall

Defendant/appellant

Mr Steven Wall

Defendant/appellant

Mr Robert Ingham

Defendant/appellant

Mrs Theresa June Butler

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a foster child qualifies as a 'child' for succession under sections 87 and 113 of the Housing Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether exclusion of foster children from succession is compatible with ECHR Articles 8 and 14
  3. 3 Effect of possession orders and subsequent re-letting on tenancy rights

Ratio Decidendi

A foster child does not qualify as a 'child' for the purposes of succession to a secure tenancy under sections 87 and 113 of the Housing Act 1985, as the statutory definition is exhaustive and does not include foster children. The exclusion of foster children is objectively justified and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Wall was therefore not entitled to succeed to the tenancy or to possession against Mr and Mrs Ingham.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Mr Wall's claim for possession against Mr and Mrs Ingham dismissed
  • Mr and Mrs Ingham's cross-appeal for costs against the Council dismissed