Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeal concerns a possession order made by Judge Winstanley at the Wandsworth County Court directing the Defendant to give up possession of a two-bedroomed flat at 182 Sheepcote Lane, Battersea, to the Claimants, the London Borough of Wandsworth (the council). The flat was let by the council under a secure tenancy to a deceased tenant from 1985 until his death in 1998. The Defendant, who had occupied the flat with the deceased tenant's permission since shortly after the tenancy began, claimed a right to remain in the flat despite the council's possession claim following the tenant's death. The appeal raises issues under Sections 87 and 113 of the Housing Act 1985 and Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The council's claim for damages was adjourned and is not part of this appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant qualifies as a member of the deceased tenant’s family under the Housing Act 1985 for the purpose of succession to a secure tenancy.
2. Whether the Defendant’s eviction interferes with his rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR.
3. Whether the statutory provisions governing succession to secure tenancies are compatible with the Defendant’s Convention rights.
4. The extent of the court’s discretion under the Human Rights Act 1998 when granting possession orders in cases involving Convention rights.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant asserted a right to succeed to the secure tenancy as a member of the deceased tenant’s family under Section 87 of the Housing Act 1985, relying on his long residence with the tenant and their familial connection.
• He argued that the list of family members in Section 113 of the 1985 Act should not be considered exhaustive and that the statutory provisions should be interpreted compatibly with the Human Rights Act 1998 to avoid unlawful discrimination under Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR.
• The Defendant contended that eviction would interfere with his right to respect for his home under Article 8 and that he should be treated no less favourably than others in similar situations, including under the Rent Act regime.
• He submitted that the court should not have made the possession order without evidence that eviction was necessary and proportionate under Article 8(2) of the ECHR.

Council and Secretary of State's Arguments

• The council maintained that the Defendant had no legal right to remain after the deceased tenant’s secure tenancy ended and that he was a trespasser at common law.
• They argued that the list of family members in Section 113 of the 1985 Act is exhaustive and that the Defendant’s distant familial relationship did not qualify him for succession.
• They submitted that the statutory scheme for secure tenancies was compatible with the ECHR and that the Defendant was not in a relevantly similar situation to comparators under the Rent Act regime.
• They contended that the possession order was lawful and proportionate, and that the court’s role was limited to enforcing Parliament’s statutory scheme without conducting a wide-ranging balancing exercise.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by affirming the uncontested primary facts regarding the relationship between the Defendant and the deceased tenant, noting their distant familial connection and the nature of their cohabitation. It held that the statutory definition of "member of the tenant's family" in Section 113 of the Housing Act 1985 is exhaustive, deliberately limiting succession rights to close relatives to provide legal certainty and avoid litigation. The Defendant's relationship was found too remote and lacking the emotional and familial characteristics necessary to qualify for succession.

The court then addressed the Defendant’s Human Rights arguments under Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR. It accepted that Article 8 was engaged insofar as the Defendant had a right to respect for his home, even without legal tenancy. However, it rejected the claim that the statutory provisions discriminated unlawfully under Article 14, finding that the Defendant was not in an analogous situation to comparators entitled to succession under either the Rent Act or the Housing Act, due to significant differences in the statutory schemes and the nature of relationships recognized.

Regarding the possession order, the court emphasized the court’s duty to grant possession where the landlord’s legal right is established, noting that the Human Rights Act does not require a case-by-case proportionality assessment in this context. The statutory scheme itself provides an objective and reasonable justification for eviction, and judicial review remains the appropriate avenue to challenge any unfairness in local authority housing policies. The court distinguished this case from others where courts must engage in detailed balancing exercises under Article 8, such as planning injunctions affecting gypsies’ homes.

The court further observed that the Defendant had ample time to find alternative accommodation and that the right to respect for a home does not confer a right to indefinite occupation without legal entitlement. It concluded that the statutory provisions and the possession order were compatible with the Defendant’s Convention rights.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Defendant’s appeal, affirming the possession order requiring the Defendant to vacate the premises.

The decision confirms that the statutory list of family members entitled to succeed to secure tenancies under the Housing Act 1985 is exhaustive and that distant relatives without close familial bonds do not qualify. It clarifies that Article 8 of the ECHR protects the right to respect for a home but does not confer tenancy rights or prevent possession orders where legal entitlement has ended. The ruling underscores the limited role of courts in possession proceedings under the Housing Act, emphasizing deference to Parliament’s housing allocation policies and the availability of judicial review for public law challenges. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case.