Mullen v Salford City Council; Mushin v Manchester City Council; Frisby v Birmingham City

摘要

In conjoined appeals against decisions relating to possession proceedings brought against two individuals occupying premises under introductory tenancies and against a person who had been granted a licence to occupy a property under the homelessness regime in the Housing Act 1996 Pt VII, the court was asked to determine certain issues. The issues were (i) the content of the proportionality review required by the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 where possession was sought against an introductory tenant or a homeless person; (ii) whether s.127(2) of the 1996 Act could be read compatibly with the introductory tenant's art.8 right so as to allow him to defend a claim for possession on the grounds recognised in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45; [2010] 3 W.L.R. 1441; (iii) whether the court could defer the delivery of possession for a period in excess of the maximum permitted by the Housing Act 1980 s.89 if it considered that it would be proportionate to do so. ;Eviction; Introductory tenancies; Possession claims; Proportionality; Right to respect for private and family life; Security of tenure