Davies v Hertfordshire CC [2018] WLR(D) 1411, is not a Traveller case but is a useful reminder that, even where there is no security of tenure, a public law defence can be put forward to a possession action (in this case concerning Children Act 2004 section 11).
See the transcript at: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/379.html&query=(davies)+AND+(v)+AND+(hertfordshire)
Jones – v – London Borough of Southwark [2016] EWHC 457 (Ch) 4 March 2016
It was revealed in this case that London Borough of Southwark and a number of other local authorities regarded themselves as agents in the collection of water rates for Thames Water but that they were in fact re-sellers and thus subject to the Water Resale Order 2006 which imposes maximum charges on re-sellers and allows only for modest administration charges.
This claim concerned a challenge brought by an Irish Traveller to a “local connection” requirement contained within North Somerset Council’s housing allocations scheme, which had been extended beyond Part VI Housing Act 1996 allocations to cover Gypsy/Traveller site allocations. The effect of that requirement was that the Claimant, who could not point to a local connection to North Somerset, was denied entry to the Council’s housing register.
The Traveller Movement and Others – v – J D Wetherspoon Plc, Central London County Court, 18 May 2015, HHJ Hand QC
On 17th November 2011 the annual Traveller Movement Conference took place. As usual the Conference took place at the offices of the Traveller Movement (offices shared with other organisations) at the Resource Centre on Holloway Road in London. Also as usual, after the Conference, some of the delegates went for a drink to the Coronet public house next door, a public house run by J D Wetherspoon. There was no evidence of any problems having been caused in previous years or in this year by delegates from the Conference. However, there was evidence of problems following on from a Conference at the Resource Centre in 2005 on the occasion of the Anarchist Book Fair.
R(Patrick Mahoney, Frances Jones and Rachel Cleary) -v- Secretary of State For Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 589 (Admin) 9 MARCH 2015
In this case, the Claimant Irish Travellers, who have to move from their site to an alternative site due to the Crossrail Project, challenged their inability, under the Land Compensation 1973, to claim home loss payments (unlike the situation for house dwellers). Unfortunately they were unsuccessful in this challenge.
Worcestershire County Council -v- J (By His Litigation Friend W) and the Equality and Human Rights Commission [2014] EWCA Civ 1518
Our report of the first instance judgment in this matter is at:- https://www.communitylawpartnership.co.uk/links/tat-news – TAT News E Bulletin No. 5.
J’s parents are Travelling Showpeople. They are based in Worcestershire but travel elsewhere in the country between February and November each year. They have a winter base at Malvern. J suffers from Down’s Syndrome and is a “child in need” because of his disability.
R (Ward) v South Cambridgeshire DC, [2014] EWHC 521 (Admin), 4 February 2014
The local authority manages Gypsy and Traveller sites in South Cambridgeshire at Blackwell and Whaddon. Ms Ward is an Irish Traveller and the mother of six children. She currently lives in privately rented accommodation. She has been on the waiting list for a pitch on one of the two sites managed by the local authority since March 2010.
R (AB) – v – The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 3453 (Admin) 7th November 2013
This was a deportation case but it contains an extremely important decision on the question of the applicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the UK Courts. The British and Polish Governments secured, at the negotiations on the Lisbon Treaty, an opt out from the incorporation of the Charter into their domestic law.
Zoumbas – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 74, Supreme Court 27th November 2013
This case involved an appeal against a refusal of asylum. Though Mr Zoumbas was unsuccessful in his appeal, the case provides an important reminder that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in any such decision. To read the Judgment, click here: Zoumbas -v- SSHD Judgment
R(J) -v- Worcestershire CC & ECHR [2013] EWHC 3845 (Admin)
The first paragraph of this judgment of Holman J is memorable:
Everyone loves a funfair. They are part of the tapestry of our national life.