Smith (On Behalf of the Gypsy Council) v Buckland

Smith (On Behalf of the Gypsy Council) v Buckland

The amendment to section 4 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 introduced sufficient procedural safeguards to meet the requirements of Article 8 ECHR as identified in Connors. The public law defence was not seriously arguable on the facts, and the legislative framework now requires judicial scrutiny before eviction. The discrimination point, while not fully resolved, is sufficiently mitigated to fall within the margin of appreciation. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Hughie Smith (On Behalf of the Gypsy Council); Appellant/defendant: Maria Buckland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Possession Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Security of Tenure, Article 8 ECHR, Judicial Review, Discrimination, Procedural Safeguards
Land Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Eviction Security of Tenure Article 8 ECHR Judicial Review Discrimination +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hughie Smith (On Behalf of the Gypsy Council)

Respondent/claimant

Maria Buckland

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended section 4 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 cures the incompatibility with Article 8 ECHR identified in Connors v UK
  2. 2 Whether the public law defence (Winder defence) is seriously arguable in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the facts of the case are materially distinguishable from Connors v UK

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to section 4 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 introduced sufficient procedural safeguards to meet the requirements of Article 8 ECHR as identified in Connors. The public law defence was not seriously arguable on the facts, and the legislative framework now requires judicial scrutiny before eviction. The discrimination point, while not fully resolved, is sufficiently mitigated to fall within the margin of appreciation. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Possession order stands as suspended by the County Court on specified terms
  • No further relief granted