Scotland's Social Housing Sector is closely monitoring the now high profile 'Mitchell' case about to be heard by the Law Lords, and the outcome of which could have far reaching implications for the management and liability of Housing Associations across Scotland.

A final hearing on the case is set for the first week in December, with a judgment expected from the Law Lords in the New Year.

The case is based on a claim for £150,000 compensation against Glasgow City Council by the family of James Mitchell, who was killed by his neighbour. The Council is being accused of failing in its duty of care on the premise that it did not evict the killer, James Drummond, despite complaints regarding his behaviour and arrests for threatening his neighbours. It has also been said that the Council should have warned Mr Mitchell about threats made by James Drummond in the hours before the attack which lead to his death. James Drummond was subsequently convicted of culpable homicide and sentenced to eight years in prison.


Eight Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) have sought to have their views heard under the 'Intervention Procedure', which enables interested parties to explain how a change in the law arising out of a specific case will affect a particular interest group.

The RSLs have intervened because the decision by the Law Lords will have a major impact on the sector. It will affect the way in which anti-social behaviour is managed, and if approved will impose a significant liability on RSLs.

Derek Hogg, Head of Social Housing with lawyers McClure Naismith, which is advising the eight Housing Associations, said: "The RSLs have sought to intervene in order to ensure there is a balanced view on the implications of the case, and that full consideration is given to the practical impact any judgment would have on RSLs."

Graham Craik, Litigation Partner with McClure Naismith, who is lead adviser on the case added: "As the case currently stands RSLs which deal with antisocial behaviour proactively risk financial claims arising from the criminal actions of the tenant involved. The irony which that creates is that an RSL which does nothing about the same antisocial behaviour avoids the risk of incurring a liability because they cannot be said to have assumed responsibility."

(GK/JM)