Contract Law

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 succ...

... middle of paper ...

... a shield, but also, it was said to be desirable for and independent tribunal to deal with proportionality at an early stage, a very similar comment has been recently made by the Court of Appeal Civil Division in the case of West Kent Housing Association Ltd v Haycraft [2012], in which was stated that in cases where the proportionality of possession proceedings under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art 8 is arguable, it is desirable for a judge to consider that at an early stage.

In conclusion:

The Human Rights Act is still striving its way to the world of property, and even if the decision in Horsham v Clark did not have an intangible impact, it has paved the way for more claims to be brought within this area of law, and the clarification provided by Manchester city council v Pinnock has given the HRA 1998 a real sense within the scope of realty.