The applicants sought to argue that the attempt to evict him from the caravan site he occupied infringed his article 8 and 14 rights. Though the Isaacs case had decided there was good reason to deny security, he argued that was no longer applicable, since many gypsies did not now seek a roving life.
Held: The onus of justifying an interference in the applicant’s human rights lay on the authorities. However, other arrangements did exist for those who wanted a more settled life. The earlier position remained appropriate. The different treatment of the applicants was justified in the pursuance of a legitimate aim.
Judges:
Burton J
Citations:
Gazette 28-Nov-2002, [2002] EWHC 2400 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Caravan Sites Act 1968 Part 1, European Convention on Human Rights 8 14
Citing:
Cited – Somerset County Council v Isaacs Admn 24-May-2002
. .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For Employment Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another (No 2) HL 17-Feb-2000
Although fewer men were affected by the two year qualifying period before becoming entitled not to be dismissed unfairly, the difference was objectively justified by the need to encourage employers to take staff on, and was not directly derived from . .
Cited – Hooper and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 14-Feb-2002
The claimants alleged that the way they were treated as widowers under the benefits subjected them to discrimination.
Held: The continued payment of widow’s pension was objectively justified. . .
Cited – Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 6-Mar-2002
The appellant had occupied for a long time a room in a house let by the authority. After the death of the tenant, the appellant sought, but was refused, a statutory tenancy. He claimed to be a member of the tenant’s family, and that the list of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Wrexham County Borough v The National Assembly of Wales, Michael Berry, Florence Berry CA 19-Jun-2003
A traditional gypsy family had settled because of ill health, and sought to establish a caravan site. The authority claimed they were no longer to be treated as Gypsy and having the entitlement under the Act.
Held: The Act defined ‘Gypsies’ as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Housing
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178301