Weaver, R (on the application of) v London & Quadrant Housing Trust

Weaver, R (on the application of) v London & Quadrant Housing Trust

LQHT is a public authority for relevant purposes under s.6(3)(b) HRA 1998 when managing and allocating social housing, due to the extent of public funding, regulatory control, and its role in implementing government policy. However, the claimant did not have a legitimate expectation enforceable in public law that LQHT would not use ground 8, as the relevant tenancy term and guidance were too general and not a clear, unambiguous promise. LQHT did not breach any legitimate expectation or the claimant's Convention rights by seeking possession under ground 8.

Parties
Claimant: Susan Weaver; Defendant: London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Public Authority Definition, Possession Proceedings, Article 8 ECHR, Judicial Review, Social Housing Regulation
Administrative Law Housing Law Human Rights Legitimate Expectation Public Authority Definition Possession Proceedings Article 8 ECHR Judicial Review +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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Weaver

Claimant

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether London & Quadrant Housing Trust (LQHT) is a public authority under s.6(3)(b) Human Rights Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether LQHT is amenable to judicial review on a conventional public law basis
  3. 3 Whether LQHT breached a legitimate expectation by seeking possession under mandatory ground 8

Ratio Decidendi

LQHT is a public authority for relevant purposes under s.6(3)(b) HRA 1998 when managing and allocating social housing, due to the extent of public funding, regulatory control, and its role in implementing government policy. However, the claimant did not have a legitimate expectation enforceable in public law that LQHT would not use ground 8, as the relevant tenancy term and guidance were too general and not a clear, unambiguous promise. LQHT did not breach any legitimate expectation or the claimant's Convention rights by seeking possession under ground 8.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed