Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Property Law and the Human Rights Act 1998. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 8 page paper considers the way that the Human Rights Act may create change in property law in the UK. The paper argues that there is a bias towards the wishes and rights of property owners, but that this is changing gradually. The argument uses multiple cases to illustrate points raised including Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v. O’Sullivan [2003] EWCA 371, Wandsworth LBC v Michalak [2002] 4 All ER 1136, Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2003] 2 WLR 478 and many others. The bibliography cites 4 sources.
Page Count:
8 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TEHRAprop.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
is one area of law that is not immediately apparent as directly related to property law, but is still having an impact. This is the Human Rights Act 1998, which
came into effect in 2000. The Human Rights Act (HRA) it is also useful to remember that it is the enactment of the Human Rights Convention into UK law. There
are several aspects of this Act, which has the proposes of protection the rights of the individual, which may be invoked in property law cases. However, it is also worth
noting that the attitude taken by the courts appears to be one that is constrained. There was a great opportunity for change with the invocation of the Human Rights Act,
but the interpretation appears to limit the extent of the potential and may be argued as bias towards the status quo and favouring the property owners rather than property users.
However, with the HRA it appears that proprietary rights are being eroded gradually. If we look at a case that was taken before the courts we can see how
Human Rights and property law can cross. It is interesting to note that the first Scottish case that was taken before the European Court of Human Rights; Lithgow v
UK, A102, 8 EHRR 329 involved property. This case was a result of a compulsory purchase order, the land had been taken. The plaintiff claimed they had not received fair
compensation (Reed, 2001). This case concerned Article 6; this is where each individual is given the right to a fair trial as well as access to the courts
(Davis, 2000). As indicated by the above case, this covers compulsory purchase, however, it also looks at the way licensing takes place, as with Tre Trakt?rer v Sweden, A139, 13
...