A mother from
Elizabeth Gilboy had argued that Liverpool City Council’s eviction process, in which a council officer has the final say in evicting tenants who are alleged to have become a nuisance to their neighbours, amounted to an “unfair trial” because cases were not decided by an “impartial and independent tribunal”.
In June 2006, Gilboy’s tenancy of her local authority home l, was put on probation for 12 months by a county court judge following complaints by neighbours of anti-social behaviour by her 18-year-old son.
In August, after further allegations of anti social-behaviour by the teenager, a council officer decided that Gilboy and her family should be evicted.
Gilboy denied the allegations but another council officer conducting an internal review of the decision found that a case for possession had been made out.
A claim for possession was subsequently issued by the council, but was stayed pending the outcome of Gilboy’s judicial review application to the High Court.
Rejecting Gilboy’s application for judicial review, Stanley Burnton J ruled that her arguments were “ill-founded”, because the council’s internal review procedure together with the right to apply for judicial review had satisfied the requirements for a fair trial under the Human Rights Act 1998.
R (on the application of Gilboy) v
Adam Fullwood (instructed by Jackson & Canter) appeared for the claimant; Paul Burns (instructed by Liverpool City Council) appeared for the defendant; Daniel Stilitz (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the interested party.
