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  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.