Phillip Robling & Anor v Maurice Fred Doe
[2024] UKUT 11 (LC)
Sophie Catherine Mary Dean & Ors v Simon Mitchell & Anor
15 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1479 (KB)
High Court
A man lived in a mobile home on land that later got permission to have mobile homes. The law said he didn't have protection because the permission came after he moved in. The judge said that was unfair because it violated his right to a home, and the law needs to change.
Key Facts
- •The First Defendant (Simon Mitchell) lives in a mobile home on land owned by the Claimants.
- •The site never had a site licence when the occupation agreement was made.
- •A certificate of lawful use was issued in 2015, effectively granting planning permission.
- •The Claimants served a notice to terminate the agreement.
- •The First Defendant's occupation agreement was verbal.
- •The First Defendant's mobile home was his only or main residence.
Legal Principles
A site licence is not a prerequisite for a site to qualify as a 'protected site' under the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
Caravan Sites Act 1968, s.1(2)
The Mobile Homes Act 1983 applies to agreements where the site is a protected site at the inception of the agreement.
Murphy v Wyatt [2011] EWCA Civ 408
Article 8 ECHR protects the right to respect for one's home. Interference with this right must be 'in accordance with the law' and 'necessary in a democratic society'.
Article 8 ECHR
Proportionality test: (1) importance of objective; (2) rational connection; (3) less intrusive measures; (4) balancing severity of effects against objective.
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39
Section 3 Human Rights Act 1998 requires courts to interpret legislation compatibly with the Convention. Section 4 is a remedy of last resort.
Human Rights Act 1998, s.3 & s.4; Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30
Outcomes
The court found that a site licence is not required for a site to be a 'protected site'.
Interpretation of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, s.1(2), considering legislative history and case law.
The court found that excluding the First Defendant from the protection of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 because his agreement predated planning permission is a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights.
Proportionality analysis considering the objective of the legislation, the lack of less intrusive measures, and the severity of the impact on the First Defendant.
A declaration of incompatibility was issued under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Section 3 HRA interpretation was not possible without overriding a fundamental feature of the 1983 Act. The court considered that the exclusion from the 1983 Act infringed Article 8 ECHR.
Similar Cases
Janet Maureen Jaffe v Tingdene Marinas Limited
[2024] EWCA Civ 751
Tingdene Marinas Limited v Janet Maureen Jaffe
[2023] UKUT 16 (LC)
Amber Valley Borough Council v Haytop Country Park Limited
[2024] UKUT 237 (LC)
Winifred Helen Ward v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 676 (Admin)