On 3 November 2010 the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that on receiving a request from a local authority to grant an order for possession, the Court must assess the proportionality of the order in respect of the rights laid out in Article 8 of the ECHR.
Manchester City Council (Respondent) v. Pinnock (Appellant) concerned a tenant of Manchester City Council. Following alleged anti-social behaviour of family members, the local authority sought an order for possession. Mr. Pinnock initiated Court proceedings alleging that the eviction order violated his right to respect for his home under Article 8 ECHR, due to it being disproportionate. The lower courts dismissed the claim on the grounds that they did not have the authority to review the local authority decision to evict Pinnock and his family on the ground that it was disproportionate.
The Supreme Court departed from this decision, holding that a Court requested by a local authority to make an eviction order must have the power to assess its proportionality. The Court stressed that this applies only to eviction orders from local authorities and not to private landlords. Notwithstanding that the Court was dealing with a rare type of tenancy, the Court made general points, including that Article 8 is only relevant where a person's "home" is at issue; Article 8 has the effect of suspending or refusing a possession order, even where the order for possession is valid under domestic law; and that Article 8 is more likely to be relevant to occupiers who are vulnerable, due to either a mental or physical disability.
On the facts, the Court ruled that the eviction order was in fact proportionate.