Source: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/379.html&query=(Hertfordshire)+AND+(County)+AND+(Council)
Timestamp: 2020-01-28 08:52:08
Document Index: 205464061

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ']

Cite as: [2018] EWCA Civ 379, [2018] WLR(D) 141, [2018] 1 WLR 4609
[New search] [Context ] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [View ICLR summary: [2018] WLR(D) 141] [Buy ICLR report: [2018] 1 WLR 4609] [Help]
The starting point for our consideration seems to me to be these more recent developments, the result of which, in summary, is as follows. Where a ( County) Court is asked to make an order for possession of someone's home by a local authority, the court has the power, when a defence based on article 8 of the Convention is raised, to assess the proportionality of making the order and, in making that assessment, to resolve any relevant dispute of fact notwithstanding that the defendant has no domestic right to remain. See Manchester County Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45; [2011] 2 AC 104, and Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell [2011] UKSC 8, [2011] 2AC 186. See further, Doherty v Birmingham City Council (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervening) [2008] UKHL 57; [2009] 1 AC 367; Mullen v Salford City Council [2010] EWCA H.L.R. 35 (a case affirmed on other grounds in Hounslow) and the (minority) opinion of Lord Bingham of Cornhill in Kay & Anor v. London Borough of Lambeth & Ors [2006] UKHL 10; [2006] 2 AC 465 at paras 29 and 30.