Husband and wife occupying council house as joint secure tenants - wife terminating joint tenancy and husband remaining in house - possession proceedings by council not infringing right to respect for home

Harrow London Borough Council v Qazi: HL (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Millett and Lord Scott of Foscote): 31 July 2003

The defendant and his wife were joint secure tenants of a council house.

The wife left the defendant and gave the council notice to quit under the tenancy agreement.

The defendant remained in the house and refused to vacate it when the notice expired.

He resisted possession proceedings brought by the council, alleging violation of his right to respect for his home under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judge, ordering possession, concluded that since termination of the joint tenancy had ended the defendant's legal or equitable interest in the house, it was not his home and article 8 was not engaged.

The Court of Appeal reversed his decision and remitted to the county court the question whether the interference sought was justified under article 8(2).

The council appealed.

Andrew Arden QC and David Matthias (instructed by Borough Solicitor, Harrow London Borough Council, Harrow) for the council; Jan Luba QC and Edward Fitzpatrick (instructed by Sweetman, Burke & Sinker) for the defendant.

Held, allowing the appeal (Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Lord Steyn dissenting in part) that, although it was unnecessary for a person's occupation to be lawful for premises to be his 'home' and the house was, on the facts, the defendant's 'home', the right protected by article 8 was an aspect of the right to privacy, not to proprietary or contractual rights to possession; and that, since the council had an unqualified right to possession under domestic law on expiry of the notice to quit which had terminated the joint tenancy, any interference with the defendant's right by ordering his removal from the house did not infringe article 8; and that, accordingly, no question of justification under article 8(2) arose and the judge's order would be restored.

(WLR)