The caravan park operated under planning consents requiring the caravans to be occupied only during certain months. The defendants had bought their mobile homes from the claimants to occupy full time, and said that the claimants knew of this. The claimants purported to impose new leases with clauses requiring the site not to be occupied during those months.
Judges:
Jack J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 1928 (QB), [2009] 1 EGLR 117, [2009] 2 PandCR 11
Links:
Statutes:
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 3, Caravan Act 1968 13(1), Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Babbage v North Norfolk District Council CA 1990
The court considered the extent of its ability to insert conditions into caravan site agreements under the 1960 Act. The site licence contained two relevant conditions. One required that no caravan should be occupied between November 1 and March 19. . .
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Cited – Yaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
Cited – Carter and Another v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Carrick District Council CA 6-Apr-1994
The District Council issued an established user certificate for a caravan on the appellants’ lands. The appellants then replaced the caravan with a ‘park home’ for which planning permission was refused and enforcement notices were issued by the . .
Cited – Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment and Arun Admn 27-Feb-1997
The appellant sought to quash the decision to confirm an enforcement notice which required him to remove a log cabin from his land. The issue arose whether the cabin was a caravan in law.
Held: It was not a caravan since it was not assembled . .
Cited – Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD 1981
The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bury Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 12-Aug-2011
The council appealed against the inspector’s decision to quash its enforcement notice. The land-owner occupied a wooden structure which he said was a caravan, but the council said was a residence and an unlawful change of use of agricultural land. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Planning
Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.277378
