Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 27435/95

James Lockie Thaw

against

the United Kingdom

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 16 September 1997)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

PART II : SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to the application introduced under

Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Mr. James Lockie Thaw against the

United Kingdom on 21 March 1994. It was registered on 31 May 1995

under file No. 27435/95.

2. The applicant was represented by the AIRE Centre, London.

3. The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their

Agent, Mr. M.R. Eaton, of Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.

4. On 26 June 1996 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the

application partly inadmissible. On 21 May 1997 the Commission

(First Chamber) declared the remainder of the application, which

concerns the length of proceedings complaint, admissible1. It then

proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the

Convention which provides as follows:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to

it:

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake

together with the representatives of the parties an examination

of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the

effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all

necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the

Commission;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of

the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly

settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights

as defined in this Convention."

5. The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached

a friendly settlement of the case and on 16 September 1997 it adopted

this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the

Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the

solution reached.

6. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. R. NICOLINI

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

7. The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1923 and resident in

Gateshead, Tyne and Wear.

8. In March 1988, the applicant agreed to sell his house at

7 Kirkstone Gardens ("the property") in an attempt to avoid bankruptcy.

However, on the date of completion, 15 July 1988, the applicant's

solicitor advised him not to complete, since a bankruptcy petition had

been presented on 23 February 1988 and all his property was therefore

subject to bankruptcy proceedings. The applicant had already given the

intended purchasers, Mr. and Mrs. F, the keys and they had moved into

the property.

9. On 5 November 1988, the Alliance and Leicester Building Society,

which had a mortgage over the property, ordered the applicant to give

possession of the property within 28 days but did not then pursue

proceedings. Mr. and Mrs. F therefore continued to occupy the property

without having purchased it and without paying rent.

10. On 1 August 1989, Mr. and Mrs. F took action to obtain specific

performance of the contract for sale of the property. By letter dated

10 November 1989 the applicant's solicitors applied for legal aid to

defend these proceedings. The applicant wanted the property to be sold

on the open market by either the Building Society or the trustee in

bankruptcy since he believed that a better price would now be achieved

than the one he had agreed with Mr. and Mrs. F in March 1988. On

8 December 1989 legal aid was refused on the basis that inter alia the

applicant had not shown reasonable grounds for taking, defending or

being party to the proceedings.

11. On 18 May 1990 the Newcastle County Court ordered the property

vested in the trustee in bankruptcy to be transferred to Mr. and Mrs. F

upon payment of £34,000 plus accrued interest. On 20 February 1991,

the Registrar of the High Court of Justice in Bankruptcy refused the

applicant leave to appeal from that decision. On 30 April 1991 the

applicant lodged an appeal from the Registrar's order by way of an

application to a single High Court judge of the Chancery Division. On

5 July 1991, the applicant appeared before the Vice Chancellor who

overturned the order of 20 February 1991 and granted the applicant

leave to appeal out of time against the order of 18 May 1990. On

12 November 1992 a single High Court judge upheld the order of

Newcastle County Court of 18 May 1990 and dismissed the applicant's

appeal. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal, the appeal

being set down on 2 March 1993. In December 1993 the Civil Appeals

Office, having been in contact with the trustee in bankruptcy, informed

the applicant that the trustee in bankruptcy did not consent to the

appeal proceedings. The applicant sent a letter to the Civil Appeals

Office, received on 6 January 1994, that made representations about his

rights. On 13 January 1994 the applicant was informed that the Civil

Appeals Office would liaise further with the trustee. On 8 March 1994

the trustee further confirmed that consent to the appeal proceedings

would not be forthcoming and on 9 March 1994 the trustee joined the

other parties' (Mr. and Mrs. F) request that the applicant's

application for leave to appeal be dismissed. The Registrar of the

Civil Appeals Office declined to authorise disposal of the matter by

consent until further consideration could be given to whether the

trustee was fully competent to join in a request for dismissal of the

application. On 9 October 1996 a single Lord Justice of the Court of

Appeal dismissed, by consent, the applicant's application for leave to

appeal.

12. The applicant complained of the length of proceedings under

Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

13. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,

the Commission (First Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the

parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance

with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties

to submit any proposals they wished to make.

14. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary,

acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to

explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

15. On 11 September 1997 the parties submitted declarations as to a

settlement of the case whereby the Government agreed to pay to the

applicant's representatives a sum of £1,100.00, such sum to include an

element for costs.

16. At its session on 16 September 1997, the Commission (First

Chamber) noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the

terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to

Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement

of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights

as defined in the Convention.

17. For these reasons, the Commission (First Chamber) adopted the

present Report.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

Menu

THAW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

THAW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI