West London NHS Trust v Palmer: retired Broadmoor nurse loses human rights challenge to eviction

The High Court has granted a possession order against a retired psychiatric nurse who had lived in staff accommodation on the Broadmoor Hospital estate for over three decades, dismissing his arguments that the Rent Act 1977's exemption for Crown tenancies breached his human rights.

In West London National Health Service Trust v Keith Douglas Palmer [2026] EWHC 2183 (KB), David O'Mahony, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, found in favour of the claimant Trust on all issues, ordering possession of the property along with payment of unpaid rent and utilities charges.

Keith Palmer had been employed as a staff nurse at Broadmoor Hospital from 1976 and was granted a tenancy of a house on the hospital estate in 1988 by the Secretary of State, the Trust's predecessor in title. His full-time employment ended in 2009, though he continued part-time work until 2014. He remained in the property with his wife, daughter and grandchild, and the Trust served a notice to quit in January 2024 after a long-running dispute over rent increases and unpaid utilities charges.

Mr Palmer's central defence relied on section 13 of the Rent Act 1977, which excludes tenancies from statutory protection where the landlord's interest belongs to the Crown or a government department, a provision preserved for pre-1991 tenancies such as his under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. He argued that this exemption discriminated against him contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read with Article 8 or Article 1 Protocol 1, relying heavily on the European Court of Human Rights decision in Larkos v Cyprus. He sought either to have the provision read down under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 or a declaration of incompatibility under section 4.

The judge rejected the discrimination argument at several stages. He held that being a tenant of the Crown or a government department did not amount to a qualifying "other status" for Article 14 purposes, following the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Southward Housing Co-operative Ltd v Walker and Stewart v Watts, which had declined to extend Article 14 to comparably defined landlord-based classifications. He further found that, even if such a status existed, Mr Palmer's position was not analogous to that of a private sector tenant, since the tenancy had been granted in consequence of his hospital employment and on advantageous terms linked to that employment, a factual picture the judge distinguished from Larkos. Any discrimination was, in any event, justified as a proportionate means of enabling the Trust to manage its housing stock and accommodate key clinical staff, a purpose the judge accepted was not manifestly without reasonable foundation.

Turning to Article 8, the judge applied the high threshold set out in Manchester City Council v Pinnock and subsequent authorities, concluding that Mr Palmer had not raised facts capable of rendering a possession order disproportionate, notwithstanding his long occupation and the health and financial circumstances of him and his wife. He accepted the Trust's evidence that it had a genuine operational need for the property to house current staff, noting a waiting list for employee accommodation.

On the remaining issues, the judge found that a 2021 rent increase to £950 per month had been validly assessed and notified in accordance with the tenancy agreement, and that the tenancy's repairing covenants and outstanding invoices meant Mr Palmer remained liable for unpaid utilities charges accrued since 2014, subject to the usual six-year limitation period.