The defendant gypsies had moved their caravans onto land belonging to the respondents without planning permission. They appealed an order to leave saying that the order infringed their rights to respect for family life.
Held: There had been conflicting decisions in the House of Lords (Quazi) and the ECHR (Connors). The Court of Appeal and other inferior courts were bound by the House of Lords decision. Qazi had held that the exercise of an absolute right to possession of land could not amount to an intereference in private and family life. In Connors the court had held that the procedures did not have adequate safeguards. That was indsiputably in conflict with the Qazi decision. Clarification was required.
Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Sedley
 EWCA Civ 289, Times 17-Mar-2005,  1 WLR 1825,  3 All ER 573
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Cited – Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-May-2004
The applicant gypsies had initially been permitted to locate their caravan on a piece of land owned by a local authority, but their right of occupation was brought to an end because the local authority considered that they were committing a . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – Smart v Sheffield City Council: Central Sunderland Housing Company Limited v Wilson CA 25-Jan-2002
Each tenant had become unintentionally homeless, and was granted a non-secure tenancy of accommodation under section 193. Complaints of nuisance were received from neighbours. Possession orders were obtained and now challenged under the Human Rights . .
Cited – Kay, Gorman, etc v London Borough of Lambeth, London and Quadrant Housing Trust CA 20-Jul-2004
The defendant local authority had licenced houses to a housing trust, which in turn granted sub-licences to the claimants who were applicants for housing under homelessness provisions, and who now asserted that they became secure tenants of the . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Bright; Regina v Same, Ex Parte Rusbridger QBD 21-Jul-2000
An order was made for a journalist to disclose to the police material disclosed to him in connection with a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. The journalist appealed the order, on the basis that it was in effect an order that he . .
Cited – JD, MAK and RK, RK and Another v East Berkshire Community Health, Dewsbury Health Care NHS Trust and Kirklees Metropolitan Council, Oldham NHS Trust and Dr Blumenthal CA 31-Jul-2003
Damages were sought by parents for psychological harm against health authorities for the wrongful diagnosis of differing forms of child abuse. They appealed dismissal of their awards on the grounds that it was not ‘fair just and reasonable’ to . .
Cited – Donohoe v Ingram ChD 20-Jan-2006
The appellant had lived with the bankrupt for several years, and sought an order delayng sale of the house they had lived in until their children had grown up. She said the circumstances were exceptional.
Held: The fact that the delay might . .
Appeal from – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – Doherty and others v Birmingham City Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local authority can obtain a summary order for possession against an occupier of a site which it owns and has been used for many years as a gipsy and travellers’ caravan site. His licence to occupy the site has come to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Land, Planning
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.223583