The Court of Appeal has decided in the case of Metropolitan Housing Trust v Hadjazi on 5 July 2010 that violence did not have to occur when the couple were living together in the property immediately before the victim of the violence leaves, to prove Ground 14A. Violence and threats of violence that occurred after a perpetrator left the property, which caused his wife and children to leave the property, were still covered by Ground 14A.
Ground 14A applies to people who are living together, are civil partners or married, where one or both of them is a tenant. One partner must leave the property because of violence or threats of violence by the other towards the partner, or to a member of the family living with the partner, immediately before the partner left. The Court must also be satisfied that the partner who left is unlikely to return, and if so, Ground 14A is then made out subject to proving reasonableness.
The domestic violence ground has not to date been widely used after its introduction in 1997. In this case the violence or threats of violence that caused Mr Hadjazi’s wife and children to leave the property, occurred not while they were a couple living together in the property but after Mr Hadjazi left the property and went to live temporarily elsewhere. He continued to be violent towards them until they left the property and he then returned to live there on his own.
Despite having a Childrens Act Injunction made against him, Mr Hadjazi did not accept or admit the violence or threats of violence or apologise for them or demonstrate any regret other than through his legal representative at Court. He argued that Ground 14A could not be interpreted to cover this situation.
The Court held that it defied common sense to decide that violence which occurred after the perpetrator left and went to live elsewhere would not prove Ground 14A.
Lord Justice Mummery stated: “Why should the timing of departure from the property by the victim of the violence make any difference to the availability of that ground for possession to the landlord? Why should the perpetrator of the violence be protected against the ground because the violence did not drive the victim out of the property until after the perpetrator of continuing violence has left? Violence by one person in a relationship that causes the other person in the relationship to leave the property is in substance the same inhuman conduct with the same human consequences, whether or not they were still living together at the date of the victims departure.”
The matter was therefore sent back to the County Court to reconsider the reasonableness issue.
Point to Note
Where a sole or joint tenant has fled their home due to domestic violence, even if that occurred after the perpetrator who lived with them has moved out, Ground 14A can now be relied upon.
Training
This case is one of those that will be covered in our Anti-Social Behaviour Master Class being held on the afternoon of 3 November 2010. For more details and to book do visit http://www.anthonycollins.com/events/anti-social-behaviour-masterclass-392.aspx
For further information, please contact Helen Tucker (helen.tucker@anthonycollins.com) on 0121 212 7459.