Southend -On -Sea Borough Council v AR [2012] EW Misc 25 (CC) (12 March 2012)

Southend -On -Sea Borough Council v AR [2012] EW Misc 25 (CC) (12 March 2012)

Although the claimant lawfully and properly followed all statutory procedures and was justified in seeking possession due to the defendant's behaviour, the passage of time and the defendant's subsequent compliance with tenancy terms rendered a possession order disproportionate as of the date of judgment. The application for possession was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2012] EW Misc 25 (CC)
Parties
Claimant: Southend Borough Council; Defendant: RA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Possession Proceedings (housing) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Application for possession dismissed
Legal Topics
Introductory Tenancies, Possession Proceedings, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Mental Capacity, Judicial Review, Costs
Housing Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Introductory Tenancies Possession Proceedings Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Mental Capacity +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Southend Borough Council

Claimant

RA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession Proceedings (housing) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the procedure for terminating an introductory tenancy was lawfully and properly followed
  2. 2 Whether making a possession order would be a disproportionate interference with the defendant's Article 8 ECHR rights
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's mental capacity and personal circumstances affect the proportionality of granting possession

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimant lawfully and properly followed all statutory procedures and was justified in seeking possession due to the defendant's behaviour, the passage of time and the defendant's subsequent compliance with tenancy terms rendered a possession order disproportionate as of the date of judgment. The application for possession was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for possession dismissed

Orders

  • No order for possession
  • No order as to costs save for detailed assessment of defendant's publicly funded costs