Judgment will be given next Wednesday in a landmark appeal over the role of human rights law in possession claims between private parties.
If successful it could lead to a major extension of the applicability of human rights into private disputes.
An assured shorthold tenant facing eviction is seeking a ruling from the Supreme Court that a possession order against her would be incompatible with her right to respect for her home under Article 8.
Appellant Fiona McDonald lives in a house purchased by her parents with the assistance of a mortgage. Following defaults on the mortgage payments the mortgagees appointed receivers, who served notice on the appellant seeking possession of the house.
She opposed the making of a possession order by the court on the grounds that the receivers had not been entitled to serve notice on her in their own names, and that the order would be incompatible with her right to respect for her home under Article 8. However, her case was rejected by a judge at Oxford County Court and the Court of Appeal.
Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed and Lord Carnwath will give their decision next Wednesday. They are being asked to decide whether it is open to a court, hearing an application by a private landlord under section 21(4) of the Housing Act 1988 for a possession order against an assured shorthold tenant, to consider whether the order would infringe the tenant’s rights under Article 8.
