Court of Appeal Rules in Dudley Metropolitan Council v Marilyn Mailley: Addressing Secure Tenancy Succession and Discrimination Under Housing Act 1985

Citation: [2023] EWCA Civ 1246
Judgment on

Introduction

In the recent case of Dudley Metropolitan Council v Marilyn Mailley, the Court of Appeal delved into the intricacies surrounding succession to and assignment of secure tenancies under the Housing Act 1985 (HA 1985). The appeal focused on whether the statutory provisions discriminate against an individual based on their status—specifically, the situation where an adult daughter of a deceased tenant, who had been living in the property together but had to move permanently into care, was not allowed to succeed to the secure tenancy.

Key Facts

Marilyn Mailley, the appellant, lived with her mother, Mrs Mailley, in a property let by Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council, the respondent. Upon Mrs Mailley’s permanent move to a care home due to vascular dementia, the property was no longer her principal residence, leading to the termination of her secure tenancy. Mailley sought to succeed to the secure tenancy under the HA 1985, which was rejected by Cotter J at first instance on various grounds.

The appeal raised several key issues, including whether the statutory provisions of the HA 1985 constituted direct discrimination against Mailley because of her status, whether Mailley’s situation was analogous to other potential successors, and if the legislation could be justified under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Several important legal principles were pivotal in the Court of Appeal’s analysis of Dudley Metropolitan Council v Marilyn Mailley:

  1. Secure Tenancy and Tenant Conditions: A tenancy is secure under HA 1985 only if it is the tenant’s only or principal home. Upon losing this status, the tenancy is no longer secure and can be terminated.

  2. Succession Rights: These rights are governed by sections of the HA 1985 and permit certain family members occupying the dwelling as their principal home to succeed the tenancy upon the tenant’s death, provided the tenant was not themselves a successor. The appeal highlighted the nuanced application of these provisions.

  3. Article 14 - Prohibition of Discrimination: It was considered whether the HA 1985 directly discriminates unlawfully against an individual on any ground, including “other status”, contravening the European Convention on Human Rights.

  4. Justification of Discrimination: The test for justification required establishing that the differential treatment pursues a legitimate aim and there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the aim and the means employed to realize it.

  5. Interpretation of Legislation: When interpreting legislation, the court may read words in to give effect to Human Rights under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, but it cannot do so in a way that fundamentally alters the scope and intention of the legislation.

In the case, it was determined that the provisions of the HA 1985 did not discriminate unlawfully against Mailley due to her not having an “other status” for the purpose of Article 14. Moreover, the statutes were justified for various reasons, including the need for certainty and efficient allocation of scarce housing resources.

Outcomes

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance, concluding that:

  • There was no relevant “other status” for the purpose of Article 14 discrimination as the difference in treatment was not on this ground.
  • Mailley’s situation was not analogous to the other potential successors, as the legislative conditions for having a secure tenancy were not met.
  • There was ample justification for the legislative scheme, which aimed at certainty and fair, efficient allocation of scarce housing resources.
  • Reading additional words into section 87(b) of the HA 1985 would fundamentally alter the statute and was beyond the court’s remit.

Conclusion

Dudley Metropolitan Council v Marilyn Mailley has elucidated the application of succession rights under secure tenancies and the limitations thereof. The judgment underscores the balance that legislation aims to strike between the rights of family members and the management of public housing stock, within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ruling also reaffirms the court’s reluctance to override parliamentary intent by fundamentally altering legislation via judicial interpretation. This case serves as a prescient guideline for legal professionals navigating the issues of secure tenancies, succession rights, and associated non-discrimination principles.