Duty arises only where party seeking possession is a public authority
Proportionality does not have to be considered by a court ruling on a claim for possession by a private landlord, the Supreme Court has held in a case concerning a woman with a personality disorder.
Fiona McDonald, who suffers from a personality disorder, lives in a house in Witney bought for her by her parents with the help of a loan secured by a registered charge over the property. While the rent was regularly paid, the loan fell into arrears and the lenders appointed receivers to repossess the property.
The appeal concerned whether the court was required to consider the proportionality of evicting the occupier, in light of Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court unanimously held that such a duty arose only where the party seeking possession is a public authority.
Delivering judgment in McDonald v McDonald [2016] UKSC 28, Lord Neuberger and Lady Hale said: “To hold otherwise would involve the Convention effectively being directly enforceable as between private citizens so as to alter their contractual rights and obligations, whereas the purpose of the Convention is, as we have mentioned, to protect citizens from having their rights infringed by the state.”
