Mulvenna and Smith v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (SSCLG) and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) [2017] EWCA Civ 1850
These two judicial review claims followed Moore and Coates v SSCLG and EHRC [2015] EWHC 44 (Admin) in which Gilbart J found the Secretary of State had unlawfully discriminated against Romani Gypsies/Irish Travellers by recovering all Gypsy/Traveller caravan site planning appeals for his own determination in breach of the Equality Act 2010 and Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). The claimants argued that the Secretary of State’s unlawful recovery of their appeals had a ‘domino effect’ which rendered his own appeal decisions unlawful. The EHRC supported that argument but Cranston J rejected it and the Court of Appeal upheld his decision.
Wetherspoons discriminated against Irish Travellers, 18 May 2015
High Court finds the Government discriminated against Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers, 21 January 2015
R (Mary Michelle Sheridan and Others) v Basildon BC [2011] EWHC 2938 (Admin)
The Irish Traveller residents of Dale Farm were unsuccessful in their judicial review challenge against the local authority’s decision to take direct action to evict them from their plots on the site. The case was heard at first instance by Ouseley J. Lord Justice Sullivan who refused a renewed application for permission made to the Court of Appeal.
Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs v Meier and others [2009] UKSC 11
This was a case concerning a claim for a wide possession order and a supporting injunction brought against New Travellers encamped on woodland managed by the Forestry Commission. The Supreme Court held that an injunction which restrained the Travellers from camping on the land they occupied and other parcels of land in the area could stand but that a wide possession order which covered land which it owned but was not subject to unauthorised occupation at the time when the order was made, should be discharged. In so doing, the Supreme Court also overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision in this case and its decision in the earlier case of Drury v Secretary of State for the Environment [2004] EWCA Civ 200.
Leeds City Council v Price [2006] UKHL 10
The House of Lords concluded that the eviction of Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers from public land did not breach their human rights. It held that in a case where there was an inconsistency between a judgment of the House of Lords and a judgment of the ECtHR, domestic courts were bound to follow the House of Lords’ decision.
South Bucks DC v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953
This was the second House of Lords case concerning the Porter family. Their Lordships upheld the decision to grant the family planning permission and gave guidance to planning inspectors on the extent to which they needed to give reasons for their decisions.
R (Margaret Price) v Carmarthenshire CC [2003] EWHC 42 Admin
The court quashed a decision to evict an Irish Traveller from her land. She had made a homelessness application and the council had failed to consider whether she had a cultural aversion to bricks and mortar and, if so, whether there was any other suitable accommodation.
South Bucks DC v Porter (No.1) [2003] 2 AC 558
It was decided by the House of Lords that a court determining an application for an injunction to stop Romani Gypsies and Travellers living in caravans on their land, without planning permission, should take account of a variety of considerations, including the personal circumstances and human rights of the defendants.
Clarke v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions [2002] JPL 552
In this case the Court of Appeal held that when a Romani Gypsy sought planning permission for a caravan site and had a cultural aversion to bricks and mortar, it could breach his human rights to take account of an offer of conventional housing that had been made to him.
Coster v United Kingdom [2001] 33 EHRR 20
One of four Gypsy cases that were heard together with the lead case of Chapman v UK. The ECtHR decided that planning enforcement action did not breach the human rights of the Romani Gypsy families concerned, but that the State had a positive obligation to facilitate the Gypsy way of life.
R v Lincolnshire CC ex parte Atkinson (1995) 8 Admin LR 529
A case concerning the need for local authorities to take account of considerations of common humanity and to carry out welfare enquiries before deciding whether to evict Romani Gypsies and Travellers from their land.
