Hillingdon v Collins & Anor [2008] EWHC 3016 (Admin) (05 December 2008)

Hillingdon v Collins & Anor [2008] EWHC 3016 (Admin) (05 December 2008)

The court held that, following the House of Lords decision in Doherty and the statutory amendments, the court is required to scrutinise the proportionality of eviction and the lawfulness of the authority's decision, but this does not entitle defendants to a full factual hearing and disclosure in every case. The proper approach is a two-stage process: first, determine on the papers if there is a seriously arguable case of public law unlawfulness or disproportionality; only if such a case is made should the court proceed to a full hearing with evidence. The statutory regime, as amended, is generally compatible with Article 8 ECHR, and only in rare or exceptional cases will a public law...

Citation
[2008] EWHC 3016 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Hillingdon; First Defendant: Priscilla Collins; Second Defendant: Anthony O'Donnell; Third Defendant: Martin O'Donnell; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Administrative Court Proceedings (possession Claims and Human Rights Challenge) / Interlocutory Hearing on Case Management and Scope of Issues Post Doherty V Birmingham City Council
Outcome
Directions given for a two-stage process; no immediate order for full disclosure or factual hearing; case to proceed as per the court's guidance.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home), Article 1 First Protocol ECHR (protection of Property), Race Relations Act 1976 Duties, Caravan Sites Act 1968, Judicial Review/public Law Defences
Public Law Housing Law Human Rights Law Possession Proceedings Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home) Article 1 First Protocol ECHR (protection of Property) Race Relations Act 1976 Duties Caravan Sites Act 1968 +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Hillingdon

Claimant

Priscilla Collins

First Defendant

Anthony O'Donnell

Second Defendant

Martin O'Donnell

Third Defendant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Administrative Court Proceedings (possession Claims and Human Rights Challenge) / Interlocutory Hearing on Case Management and Scope of Issues Post Doherty V Birmingham City Council

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are entitled to a full factual hearing and disclosure in possession proceedings by a local authority in light of Article 8 ECHR and recent case law
  2. 2 Whether the statutory regime for possession of local authority gypsy sites is compatible with Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 of the First Protocol
  3. 3 Whether the court must scrutinise the proportionality and lawfulness of the local authority's decision to seek possession

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, following the House of Lords decision in Doherty and the statutory amendments, the court is required to scrutinise the proportionality of eviction and the lawfulness of the authority's decision, but this does not entitle defendants to a full factual hearing and disclosure in every case. The proper approach is a two-stage process: first, determine on the papers if there is a seriously arguable case of public law unlawfulness or disproportionality; only if such a case is made should the court proceed to a full hearing with evidence. The statutory regime, as amended, is generally compatible with Article 8 ECHR, and only in rare or exceptional cases will a public law...

Court Disposition

Directions given for a two-stage process; no immediate order for full disclosure or factual hearing; case to proceed as per the court's guidance.

Orders

  • The court directed that the first stage will be a determination on the papers of whether there is a seriously arguable case that the authority acted unlawfully or disproportionately.
  • If such a case is established, the court will then order a full hearing with evidence and disclosure as appropriate.