Any thought that the Human Rights Act 1998 can be safely filed away under “basic civil liberties” will be swiftly dispelled by
Looking specifically at property litigation, the authors identify a number of areas where the Act may be called into play, prime targets being distress and other self-help remedies that our robust domestic law has long afforded to landlords. But, as the authors make clear, it would be a mistake to see the Act as a charter for the underdog. A landowner might contend that an adverse possession claim by squatters is inconsistent with his rights under Article 1. Could a similar charge be made against an application to renew a commercial lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954?
Also raised is the intriguing question of whether the Act could be used to overturn the House of Lords decision in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] EGCS 59, where it was held that no action lay in nuisance for an interference with TV reception caused by the erection of a new building on the defendant’s site.
We shall be in for surprises. That much is certain.
Any thought that the Human Rights Act 1998 can be safely filed away under “basic civil liberties” will be swiftly dispelled by A reading of the Rights Act Estates Gazette 16 September 2000, p149, written by Suzanne Lloyd Holt and Maggie Batts, of Wragge & Co.
Looking specifically at property litigation, the authors identify a number of areas where the Act may be called into play, prime targets being distress and other self-help remedies that our robust domestic law has long afforded to landlords. But, as the authors make clear, it would be a mistake to see the Act as a charter for the underdog. A landowner might contend that an adverse possession claim by squatters is inconsistent with his rights under Article 1. Could a similar charge be made against an application to renew a commercial lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954?
Also raised is the intriguing question of whether the Act could be used to overturn the House of Lords decision in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] EGCS 59, where it was held that no action lay in nuisance for an interference with TV reception caused by the erection of a new building on the defendant’s site.
We shall be in for surprises. That much is certain.
