Chapter 14 Scenario questions

. Amil is a private landlord and wishes to evict his private tenant, Beryl, whom he accuses of antisocial behaviour. Beryl wants to resist the eviction on human rights grounds and seeks your counsel. From your understanding of the interplay between land law and human rights, what advice do you give Beryl here? Select one of the following.

The courts both domestically and at European level have shown themselves willing to accept that Art. 8 of the ECHR is engaged whenever a tenant is facing eviction by their landlord. Beryl can argue the eviction would constitute a breach of her Article 8 rights and is a disproportionate response to her behaviour.

In this purely private context (i.e. private landlord–tenant relationship) Art. 8 of the ECHR will not be engaged.

Given the breadth of interpretation given to the term 'home' for the purposes of Art. 8, Beryl stands a good chance of arguing that her Art. 8 rights would be infringed by this eviction.

The courts both domestically and at European level have confirmed that Art. 8 of the ECHR is never engaged when a tenant is facing eviction by their landlord.

. As to the interpretation given to Art. 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR, the European Court in Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden (1983) explained that Art. 1 must be read as containing three distinct but necessarily interrelated rules. Which one of the following statements best reflects the court's interpretation of these three rules?

Rule 1: peaceful enjoyment of property; rule 2: deprivation of possessions; rule 3: control of possessions by the State.

Rule 1: respect for private life; rule 2: respect for family life; rule 3: respect for home.

Rule 1: peaceful enjoyment of property; rule 2: deprivation of possessions; rule 3: respect for private life.

Rule 1: respect for private life; rule 2: respect for home and family life; rule 3: non-discrimination.

. Establishing that Art. 8 has been infringed requires a claimant to demonstrate (1) that the property in question is a 'home', and (2) that there has been interference with respect for that home. Which one of the following statements most accurately reflects the breadth in the interpretation given to an 'interference' with home for the purposes of Art. 8?

In fact, demonstrating an interference with Art. 8 respect for home proves relatively easy to do and the courts have construed many different scenarios as constituting interference including: compulsory purchase of land: Howard v UK (1987); eviction from land: Cyprus v Turkey (1976); exercising a right to possession: Pinnock (2010); Hounslow LBC v Powell (2011); preventing occupation of land: Gillow v UK (1989).

In fact, demonstrating an interference with Art. 8 respect for home proves relatively difficult to do and the courts have held that many different scenarios do not constitute interference including: compulsory purchase of land: Howard v UK (1987); eviction from land: Cyprus v Turkey (1976); exercising a right to possession: Pinnock (2010); Hounslow LBC v Powell (2011); preventing occupation of land: Gillow v UK (1989).

In fact, demonstrating an interference with Art. 8 respect for home has proved so challenging that the vast majority of claimants now no longer plead Art. 8 infringement and rely instead on Art. 1 of the First Protocol.

In fact, demonstrating an interference with Art. 8 respect for home has proved so straightforward that the domestic courts have gone so far as to say that in every case where property rights existing in favour of the claimant are challenged, an interference with Art. 8 is presumed to exist

. In Harrow LBC v Qazi (2004) Lord Steyn referred to 'the new landscape created by the Human rights Act 1998'. How far does this statement accord with the current jurisprudence governing the interplay of human rights and land law? Select one of the following.

The domestic courts have long taken a liberal approach to the applicability of human rights arguments in contemporary land law and this continues today with decisions such as Pinnock, Powell, and McDonald.

The domestic courts have long taken a conservative approach to the applicability of human rights arguments in contemporary land law but we are beginning to see a liberalization in this area with decisions such as Pinnock, Powell, and McDonald.

The domestic courts have long taken a liberal approach to the applicability of human rights arguments in contemporary land law but we are beginning to see a hardening of approach today in cases such as Pinnock, Powell, and McDonald.

The domestic courts have long taken a conservative approach to the applicability of human rights arguments in contemporary land law and this continues today with decisions such as Pinnock, Powell, and McDonald, which reject horizontality and place limits on human rights arguments in the vertical context.

Quiz Content