Information for "McDonald v McDonald (2016) UKSC 28"
Basic information
| Display title | McDonald v McDonald [2016] UKSC 28 |
| Default sort key | McDonald v McDonald (2016) UKSC 28 |
| Page length (in bytes) | 1,828 |
| Page ID | 8444 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 1 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
Page protection
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Edit history
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 21:53, 20 June 2016 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 11:40, 2 April 2025 |
| Total number of edits | 7 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 4 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 1 |
Page properties
SEO properties
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | "This appeal raises three questions. The first is whether a court, when entertaining a claim for possession by a private sector owner against a residential occupier, should be required to consider the proportionality of evicting the occupier, in the light of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The second question is whether, if the answer to the first question is yes, the relevant legislation, in particular section 21(4) of the Housing Act 1988, can be read so as to comply with that conclusion. The third question is whether, if the answer to the first and second questions is yes, the trial judge would have been entitled to dismiss the claim for possession in this case, as he said he would have done. ... The appellant, Fiona McDonald, is aged 45 and, sadly, she has had psychiatric and behavioural problems since she was five. ... In those circumstances, her parents, who are technically the respondents to this appeal, decided to buy a property for her to occupy. ... However, owing to financial difficulties which they unfortunately encountered in their business, they failed to meet all the [loan] interest as it fell due. ... the Receivers served a notice ... indicating that they would be seeking possession of the property." |