|
''Kay v Lambeth London Borough Council'' () 2 AC 465 was a case in the House of Lords relevant for English property law, UK human rights and English tort law case involving claims for possession by Lambeth London Borough Council against a "group of former short-life occupiers".〔(Home sweet home? )〕 ==Facts== Lambeth Council owned a number of properties that were scheduled for demolition or redevelopment. The authority did not have sufficient funds to redevelop them. From about 1979, they entered into an informal arrangement with a housing trust under which the trust was to make the properties available for occupation, inter alia by homeless persons to whom the authority owed no duty. The trust purported to grant licences to the individual occupiers. In 1986, the authority and the trust entered into an agreement, which was intended to formalise their existing arrangements. Under that agreement, the authority granted the trust a licence of all the properties. In 1995, the authority and the trust replaced the 1986 agreement with leases of the properties, with break clauses permitting termination by either party on written notice. In 1999, the House of Lords gave judgment in Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust () 1 AC 406; (1999) 31 HLR. 902, ruling that the putative licences granted by the trust—including those granted to the defendant occupiers—were in law tenancies. Following that decision, the authority exercised the break clause in the lease and claimed possession on the ground that, on termination of the lease, the applicants had become trespassers. The applicants contended, inter alia, that even if they had become trespassers, they were entitled to defend the proceedings by reference to their rights under Art.8. Their defences were struck out in the county court and appeals to the Court of Appeal and House of Lords dismissed (above). They applied to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that there had been a violation of Art.8 as there had been no determination by the court of the proportionality of the interference. In particular, they argued that the approach of the majority in Kay as to the width of gateway (b) was incompatible with Art.8. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Kay v Lambeth LBC」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|