Berkeley Leisure Group Ltd v Hampton [2001] EWCA Civ 1474 (5 October 2001)

Berkeley Leisure Group Ltd v Hampton [2001] EWCA Civ 1474 (5 October 2001)

A caravan pitch is not a 'protected site' under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 unless the relevant planning permission and site licence permit permanent residential occupation of that specific pitch. Since plot 64 does not have such permission, the respondent is not entitled to security of tenure.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1474
Parties
Claimant/appellant: The Berkeley Leisure Group Limited; Defendant/respondent: Frederick Roy Hampton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Protected Sites, Security of Tenure, Statutory Construction, Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, Planning Permission, Site Licence
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Planning Law Mobile Homes Act 1983 Protected Sites Security of Tenure Statutory Construction Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Berkeley Leisure Group Limited

Claimant/appellant

Frederick Roy Hampton

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plot 64 at Halcyon Park is a 'protected site' under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, entitling the respondent to security of tenure.
  2. 2 Whether the relevant planning permissions and site licences permit permanent residential occupation of plot 64.

Ratio Decidendi

A caravan pitch is not a 'protected site' under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 unless the relevant planning permission and site licence permit permanent residential occupation of that specific pitch. Since plot 64 does not have such permission, the respondent is not entitled to security of tenure.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders below discharged, including the costs order.
  • Permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused.