Since proprietary rights are the main concern of land law, the human rights and land law may in theory, have an antithetical nature. Until relatively recently the traditional distinction marked out in the English law of realty between personal and proprietary rights had been a fair one. However, this may no longer be taken into account with the recent phenomenon of Human Rights. Kevin Gray & Susan Francis Gray in their Land Law book (2011), have described human rights as “the bridge between personal and proprietary entitlement”.
It is largely debated that the core argument in Horsham Properties Group v Clark and Beech[2008], as well as the decision in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] have played a significant role in elevating the connection between the Human rights Act 1998 and the law of the land.
This statement will be assessed from two prospective. First, the impact of the Convention on the entirety, second the position of land owners prior to the HRA1998, and how this position changed after the HRA 1998 was incorporated into English domestic law.
The most dramatic impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the ownership of property may be best seen in Article 8. By which everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence...
It also provides that public authorities may not interfere with the exercise of this right unless such interference is in conformity with the law and necessary in democratic society, or necessary for the public safety…
Indeed this impact was felt in the House of Lords decision in the case of Connors v UK (2004), when The Council claimed possession as freehold owner against a gypsy family as a trespassers, in defending themselves, the family successfully based their defence on article 8, averring that, revoking their licence had constituted an infringement of article 8 of the HRA 1998. In the European Court of Human Rights of McCann v UK [2008] it was indicated that weighing the proportionality of eviction is not only necessary when vulnerable members of
Society (such as the gypsies in Connors) are involved but wherever a party is faced with the loss of his home.
Notwithstanding, particularly in property cases, the resistance of English courts for the HRA 1998 has always been clear, a good exemplification of that was shown in The case of Harrow LBC v Qazi (2004) where the majority of judges were of the opinion that, tenant’s home life may not prevail over the rights of landowners acquired within the law of property, and if this occurred, landlords property rights will vanish. Therefore, the court ruled that Article 8 of the Convention is powerless in this context.
Nonetheless, the court in the case of Horsham Properties Group v Clark and Beech has arguably diverted from its decision in LBC v Qazi. Horsham’s case has occupied a great deal of controversy and its impact was rather vague in this area of law. Therefore, and by way of examining its efficacy,...
