Sophie Catherine Mary Dean & Ors v Simon Mitchell & Anor

Sophie Catherine Mary Dean & Ors v Simon Mitchell & Anor

A site does not need to have a site licence in force to qualify as a 'protected site' under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. However, the exclusion from the 1983 Act of occupiers whose agreements pre-date the grant of planning permission, even where permission is later obtained, is a disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights and cannot be justified. Section 3 HRA cannot be used to reinterpret the Act to include such occupiers, as this would go against a fundamental feature of the legislation. Accordingly, a declaration of incompatibility is granted.

Parties
Claimant: Sophie Catherine Mary Dean; Claimant: Emily Margaret Ann Haggart; Claimant: Annabel Nancy Angela Harding; First Defendant: Simon Mitchell; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Declaration of incompatibility granted
Legal Topics
Security of Tenure, Mobile Homes Act 1983, Caravan Sites Act 1968, Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, Article 8 ECHR, Interpretation Under Human Rights Act 1998, Planning Permission and Site Licensing, Declaratory Relief
Human Rights Law Land Law Housing Law Security of Tenure Mobile Homes Act 1983 Caravan Sites Act 1968 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Article 8 ECHR +3 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 3 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sophie Catherine Mary Dean

Claimant

Emily Margaret Ann Haggart

Claimant

Annabel Nancy Angela Harding

Claimant

Simon Mitchell

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a site without a site licence can qualify as a 'protected site' under the Mobile Homes Act 1983
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion from the 1983 Act of occupiers whose agreements pre-date planning permission is compatible with Article 8 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether section 3 Human Rights Act 1998 requires a different interpretation of the 1983 Act

Ratio Decidendi

A site does not need to have a site licence in force to qualify as a 'protected site' under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. However, the exclusion from the 1983 Act of occupiers whose agreements pre-date the grant of planning permission, even where permission is later obtained, is a disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights and cannot be justified. Section 3 HRA cannot be used to reinterpret the Act to include such occupiers, as this would go against a fundamental feature of the legislation. Accordingly, a declaration of incompatibility is granted.

Court Disposition

Declaration of incompatibility granted

Orders

  • Declaration that the terms of the Mobile Homes Act 1983, in excluding from its scope all those whose occupation agreements pre-date the grant of planning permission, infringe Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.