Jones v Canal & River Trust

Jones v Canal & River Trust

The County Court judge erred in summarily striking out the Article 8 defence before resolving disputed facts regarding licence breach and without considering the Appellant's personal circumstances and Equality Act issues; Article 8 proportionality cannot be dismissed solely on the basis of management burden; the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Matthew Jones; Respondent: Canal & River Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Striking Out Article 8 Defence; Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order striking out paragraphs 10 to 12 of the Defence reversed.
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Summary Judgment, Equality Act 2010, Statutory Licensing, Possession Proceedings
Public Law Human Rights Law Property Law Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Summary Judgment Equality Act 2010 Statutory Licensing +1 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Jones

Appellant

Canal & River Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Striking Out Article 8 Defence; Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Canal & River Trust is to be treated as a housing authority for Article 8 ECHR purposes
  2. 2 Whether Article 8 proportionality defence can be summarily struck out in waterways licensing cases
  3. 3 Whether the burden of considering Article 8 defences justifies summary dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The County Court judge erred in summarily striking out the Article 8 defence before resolving disputed facts regarding licence breach and without considering the Appellant's personal circumstances and Equality Act issues; Article 8 proportionality cannot be dismissed solely on the basis of management burden; the defence raises a seriously arguable case and must proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order striking out paragraphs 10 to 12 of the Defence reversed.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 10 to 12 of the Defence reinstated; Article 8 defence to proceed to trial.