The background to Parker v Parker [2003] PLSCS 191 could have been written by Agatha Christie: a castle; a so-called “ancient family”; and a bitter and apparently irreconcilable quarrel over inheritance. However, it is not Lord Peter Wimsey that resolves matters but the Human Rights Act. Lord Macclesfield occupied Shirburn Castle. It was originally intended that he be granted a lease and, though a lease was drafted, it was not completed. So, it was held that the noble Lord was a licensee. The remaining question was what period of notice should he be given. The court considered both the circumstances in which the licence arose and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which establishes the right to respect for private and family life). The upshot was that two years’ notice was required.
Mark Shelton, professional support lawyer at DLA
The background to Parker v Parker [2003] PLSCS 191 could have been written by Agatha Christie: a castle; a so-called “ancient family”; and a bitter and apparently irreconcilable quarrel over inheritance. However, it is not Lord Peter Wimsey that resolves matters but the Human Rights Act. Lord Macclesfield occupied Shirburn Castle. It was originally intended that he be granted a lease and, though a lease was drafted, it was not completed. So, it was held that the noble Lord was a licensee. The remaining question was what period of notice should he be given. The court considered both the circumstances in which the licence arose and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which establishes the right to respect for private and family life). The upshot was that two years’ notice was required.
Mark Shelton, professional support lawyer at DLA
