Succession and human rights

Mr Gangera's parents had been joint secure tenants of their council home. In 1995 his father died and in 2001 his mother died. Because the tenancy had been a joint one, Gangera could not succeed to it after his mother's death. The council gave him notice to leave and then brought a possession claim.

He contended that the succession laws contained unjustified discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Human Rights Convention. For example, if his mother had been the sole tenant, he could have succeeded. But the judge decided that parliament's discretion in fixing such succession rules had to be respected by the courts.

Gangera then tried to fight the possession claim on the basis that the council could not show why his eviction was "necessary" and "proportionate" (the criteria for permitting breach of the right to respect for his home under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention). The judge decided that a local court did not have to go into the individual facts in this type of case. The statutory scheme relating to council housing itself decided which occupiers could stay and which could not. The courts acted by giving effect to such schemes irrespective of the circumstances of individuals.