High Court upholds dismissal of possession claim on human rights grounds

The High Court this month upheld the dismissal of a possession claim against an introductory tenant on human rights grounds, the first time an appeal court is understood to have done so.

Robert Armour had been granted an introductory tenancy by Southend Council in January 2011. But within two months there had been three complaints that he had been abusive.

The local authority decided that it would seek eviction. This decision was upheld on review. Under the Housing Acts, Southend had an absolute right to a possession order.

The case came to trial in March 2012. By this time, Armour had been diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome and severe depression, and lacked capacity to defend the claim.

There had been no further incidents since the original problems, 11 and a half months previously. The defendant was supported by his teenage daughter, who lived with him, his sister and his ex-partner. He was also backed by youth services and the probation service.

Recorder Davies at Southend County Court said the decision as at 12 March 2012 was no longer a proportionate decision to take.

“There has been no continuing antisocial behaviour, and although it appeared in February and March 2011 this antisocial behaviour that the defendant was engaging in was persistent it stopped as soon as he was served with notice of possession,” she said.

The judge concluded that – “with no criticism at all of the actions of the claimant" [Southend] – a possession order would infringe Armour’s human rights.

She therefore dismissed the claim, but told the defendant’s supporters that he must realise that there would be a continuing duty and obligation to comply with the terms of the tenancy.

The council appealed to the High Court, but failed to overturn the Recorder’s ruling.

According to Mr Justice Cranston, the Recorder had balanced all the factors weighing for and against it being 'proportionate' to grant possession. She had given a "model judgment" showing how these cases should be dealt with.

Jan Luba QC of Garden Court Chambers represented Armour at the High Court.

A copy of the Recorder’s judgment can be downloaded from the Garden Court Chambers website here