星空传媒

Ms Sharp's parents had been council tenants. Both had died. The council rejected Ms Sharp's claims to have succeeded to the tenancy either by legal right or under the council's own scheme. It was granted possession.

Ms Sharp applied for rehousing as homeless. The council offered her a different flat and confirmed that decision on review. Ms Sharp appealed. She said that, given her personal and medical circumstances, only the parental home was "suitable". She argued that a failure to let her stay would infringe her right to respect for her home.

The local judge agreed and quashed the council's decision. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal. It decided the main issue was whether the alternative flat was correctly considered to be "suitable". There was no scope for a court to decide whether somewhere else was more suitable. Even if failing to let Ms Sharp stay had engaged her human rights, the council had justified its action as lawful, necessary and proportionate. Any interference was justified by the council's proper discharge of its housing functions.