Aster Communities Ltd v Akerman-Livingstone
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE ARDEN
- LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Human rights Law
- Administrative Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Lady Justice Arden delivered the lead judgment on Jonathan Akerman-Livingstone’s appeal against summary possession granted to Aster Communities Ltd, a housing association providing temporary accommodation at Mendip District Council’s request. Akerman-Livingstone, who suffers from prolonged duress stress disorder, argued that issuing possession proceedings was disability discrimination under Equality Act 2010 section 15. The Court of Appeal held that section 15 proportionality must be assessed in the same manner as Article 8 ECHR defences in social housing cases (Pinnock; Powell), applying a high threshold of serious arguability and permitting summary determination under CPR 55.8. The twin aims—protecting property rights and enabling MDC to meet statutory housing duties—carried decisive weight. On the assumed facts, eviction was proportionate; the Equality Act defence was not seriously arguable. The court dismissed the appeal and refused permission to amend to raise an assured shorthold tenancy notice point.
Judgment
Lady Justice Arden :
APPELLANT SEEKS TO RESIST POSSESSION PROCEEDINGS BY HIS SOCIAL LANDLORD ON GROUNDS OF HIS DISABILITY
Mr Jonathan Akerman-Livingstone has a severe prolonged duress stress disorder (“PDSD”). In 2010, he was homeless. He went to his local housing authority (“LHA”), Mendip District Council (“MDC”). They agreed that they owed him the duty to secure that housing was available for him imposed by Parliament (section 193(2), Housing Act 1996 (“HA 1996”)). I will call this “the main housing duty” (the expression adopted in section 200 (1)(b) of the HA 1996)., and it lasts until one of the events which Parliament has specified in section 193(5) to (7AA) occurs. These events include refusal to accept suitable accommodation offered by the LHA. So MDC ensured that Mr Akerman-Livingstone got temporary accommodation with what later became Aster Communities Ltd (“Aster”), which is a housing association. Mr Akerman-Livingstone became the tenant of Flat 1, Pilgrim’s Tap in Glastonbury (“the property”), which was their property.
Then MDC wanted Mr Akerman-Livingstone to choose another property as his permanent accommodation. Mr Akerman-Livingstone had to choose between different properties. He is a very sick man. He could not cope with what was involved. Eventually there came a time when MDC said that they had discharged their duty. At that point their main housing duty came to an end. MDC then required Aster to take proceedings to evict Mr Akerman-Livingstone from the property so that it could be made available to another homeless person to whom MDC owed the main housing duty. When Aster did this, Mr Akerman-Livingstone said that the bringing of the proceedings amounted to discrimination against him by reason of his disability in breach of section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”). If this defence succeeded the court could not make a possession order.
Section 15 of the EA 2010 provides:
“15 Discrimination arising from disability
(1) A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if—
(a) A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B's disability, and
(b) A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if A shows that A did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability.”
The question on this appeal was whether there had to be a trial. Mr Akerman-Livingstone wanted there to be a