McDonald v McDonald [2014] EWCA Civ 1049 (CA)

The Court of Appeal considered the application of Article 8 ECHR in the case of an assured shorthold tenancy terminated by a valid s.21 notice. The property was let to the tenant by her parents. They fell behind in their mortgage payments and receivers took charge, obtaining a possession order at first instance.

The tenant argued Article 8 was applicable and that she was vulnerable. The Court held that there was no “clear and constant” line of authority showing Article 8 applied to purely private tenancies. Further, that the Court was bound by Poplar HARCA v Donoghue [2002] QB 48 which held that s.21 notices did not contravene the ECHR. Finally, possession would have been proportionate in any event, the mortgage company being entitled to realise its security.