Human rights and housing

Mr and Mrs Qazi were joint secure council tenants. In 1999 Mrs Qazi left and gave the council a notice to quit that brought the joint tenancy to an end. The council claimed possession.

By the date of trial Mr Qazi had remarried and occupied the house with his new wife and two children. He claimed that to evict him would constitute an infringement of the right to respect for his home given by Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

The county court judge decided that, as Mr Qazi no longer had a legal right to occupy the property, it could not be his "home" at all. A possession order was made.

Mr Qazi successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal, which decided that the house remained his home even after the tenancy ended. The council appealed to the House of Lords.

All five Law Lords agreed with the Court of Appeal that the property was Mr Qazi's "home". However, by a 3:2 majority, they decided that a possession claim by a landlord or property owner, that was unanswerable in domestic law could not be defeated by reliance on Article 8.

This was either because insistence on recognised legal rights did not constitute interference with "respect" for a home or because any such interference was justified by the necessity of giving effect to those recognised legal rights.