Manchester City Council v Pinnock
 EWCA Civ 852
Mummery, Lloyd, Stanley Burnton LJJ
Following a demoted tenancy order, a Landlord's subsequent decision to seek possession was not open to review, save on procedural grounds. The court could not review the substance or rationality of the landlord's decision
The tenant (T) was a secure tenant of the LA. Following anti social behaviour by T's children, the secure tenancy was converted to a demoted tenancy. Following the demotion order, the children's behaviour did not improve and the LA sought possession.
Held : The obtaining of possession of a demoted tenancy was a two-stage process. The first stage, an application for demotion, involved the court considering the issues of reasonableness and proportionality. The second stage did not require the same level of scrutiny and restricted the court to consider only whether the procedure under s.143E and 143F had been followed. The court could only review the landlord's decision under the second stage if his decision amounted to Wednesbury unreasonableness (one that no reasonable person would consider justifiable).
R (Gilboy) v Liverpool CC – 02/07/2008
 EWCA Civ 751
Waller LJ, Buxton LJ, Smith LJ
The local authority's internal procedure for reviewing a decision to terminate a demoted tenancy is compatible with the ECHR
Held : The procedure for reviewing a decision to terminate a demoted tenancy is governed by the Demoted Tenancies (Review of Decisions) (England) Regulations 2004. This legislation is not contrary to Art. 6 or 8 ECHR. Court applied McLellan v Bracknell Forest BC  EWCA Civ 1510 , which held the same in respect of the review procedure for Introductory Tenancies.
R (on the App. of Gilboy) v Liverpool City Council
 EWHC 2335
Stanley Burton J
The Demoted Tenancies (Review of Decisions) (England) Regulations 2004 were not incompatible with Art.6 of the ECHR insofar as a review by a local authority in relation to the determination of demoted tenancy was carried out by an independent and impartial tribunal
This was a claim for judicial review of a decision by a reviewing officer of a LA in relation to a decision by the same LA to determine a demoted tenancy under the Regulations.
Held : The Regulations were not incompatible with Art.6 ECHR insofar as a review by a LA was carried out by an independent and impartial tribunal, even though the reviewing officer might have been from the same LA that made the initial decision.
Art.6 applied only to a determination of civil rights and obligations; the review did not determine any such right or obligation - this was undertaken by the county court on an application for possession.