After this book had been completed, the Supreme Court gave judgment in Hounslow LBC v. Powell [2011] 2 WLR 287. This postscript only addresses the effect of that judgment on the analysis contained in Chapter 16 above, concerned with proportionality defences to mandatory possession proceedings (I have resisted the temptation to deal with other after-events, such as the Court of Appeal decision in Gladehurst Properties Ltd v. Hashemi [2011] EWCA Civ 604 and the High Court decision in Potts v. Densley [2011] EWHC 1144 which further the destruction of the tenancy deposits regime, discussed at pp. 224–8 above, and amendments to that regime in the Localism Bill; as well as the ongoing saga about the impact of the HB changes and the flexible tenancy regime).

It will be remembered that, in Manchester CC v. Pinnock [2010] 3 WLR 1441, the Supreme Court accepted that it was now time for the defence of proportionality based on Article 8, Schedule 1, Human Rights Act 1998, to be accepted as a challenge to mandatory possession proceedings in domestic courts. Although the Supreme Court did provide certain limited guidance in Pinnock, as discussed at p. 391 above, it was recognised that the appeals in Powell were likely to provide the opportunity for more guidance to be given (at [59]).