Source: https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barristers/stephen-cottle/sao
Timestamp: 2019-12-06 03:54:54
Document Index: 387098068

Matched Legal Cases: ['UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'art 5', 'art.6']

Stephen Cottle | Barristers | Garden Court Chambers | Leading Barristers located in London, UK
"Very good and is a specialist adviser on gypsies and travellers."
"Excellent advocate, intellectually strong, with a commitment to the cause and personable nature."
Legal 500, 2020 (Social Housing)
"An excellent advocate who is intellectually strong, with commitment to the cause and a personable nature."
Chambers UK, 2020 (Social Housing)
"He has enormous energy and great aptitude for turning cases around."
Stephen is an expert in social housing, planning and property law. He has an established practice in housing and landlord and tenant covering most areas, including equality and discrimination issues, homelessness, possession claims including mortgage repossession, and housing standards and disrepair.
Stephen was a finalist for the Legal Aid Barrister of the Year Award 2014. He is ranked in the Legal 500 2019 for his work in both Civil Liberties and Human Rights and Social Housing.
Arrears; Disability discrimination; Interest-only mortgages; Mortgages; Reasonable adjustments. The Defendant had taken out a 20-year repayment mortgage. Arrears accrued as a result of disability. The DWP through its "Support for Mortgage Interest" scheme met the interest payments of a person in the Defendant's position. The Recorder found as a fact that the interest due on the principle sum, payable by the Defendant was lower than the rate met by the DWP.
She was therefore entitled to a payment that would meet the interest payment due, and more. Had the mortgage been changed to an interest only mortgage, the Defendant would have been able to meet the interest payments and paid off the arrears over a relatively short period of time. The lender issued proceedings and refused the Defendant's requests to switch to an interest-only mortgage as its policy was not to provide such mortgages to existing repayment mortgagors.
The main issue concerned the nature of the service that was being provided and whether that policy made it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of the mortgage service or put the Defendant at a substantial disadvantage. The Court decided that an adjustment from capital repayment to interest only would fundamentally alter the service and the lender had not discriminated unlawfully against the borrower on account of her disability or failed to make a reasonable adjustment for her under s.21(1) of the 1995 Act or s.20 of the 2010 Act. A stay was obtained pending the outcome of an application to the Supreme Court, which has been lodged.
Uresha Adikari Mudiyanselage v The London Borough of Redbridge - B2/2016/0287
HHJ Saggerson at 1st instance in the County Court at Central London 14/12/15 accepted that the relevant considerations to deciding under section 191 of the Housing Act 1996 if the last settled accommodation was reasonable to continue to occupy, included the duty in section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004.
The matter went to the Court of Appeal over the content of that duty which it was submitted required the decision maker (i) to identify the principal needs of each child and then (ii) to establish which decision would be the one that promoted the welfare of the children and why and then (iii) on the basis of those facts and matters take the decision whether it is reasonable to continue to occupy having "due regard" to the need to promote the welfare of children.
Redbridge had not followed such an approach. The Single Judge in the Court of Appeal considering the matter on the papers, refused permission on the basis that a 2nd appeal was not required to establish that the observations made in Nzolameso v Westminster CC [2015] UKSC 22; [2015] H.L.R. 22 @27 in relation to section 11(2) Children Act 2004 and suitability applied (distinguishing Mohamoud v Kensington & Chelsea RLBC [2015] HLR 38 @ 63-70 & Huzrat v Hounslow LBC.) equally to whether accommodation was reasonable to continue to occupy.
An underlying issue is the difference in approach between section 11(2) and compliance with Article 3 of the UNCRC, see the May 2013 UNCRC Committee Report and Article 12 of the UNCRC.
Permission to appeal granted on the papers by Clarke LJ against decision of HHJ Godsmark QC sitting in the County Court in Nottingham concerning a case in which the Claimant sought to enforce a charging order under CPR 73.10. The Defendant, an elderly lady, appealed on the basis that the Learned Judge erred in deciding the promissory note (on the strength of which the charging order had been obtained) did not amount to an unconscionable bargain.
Lord Justice Christopher Clarke considered it appropriate for the full court to examine if the law of unconscionable bargain has been subsumed post Etridge or if unconscionable bargain is still operative and can be established where presumed undue influence can not.
Judicial review of the secretary of state's practice of recovering planning appeals involving Traveller sites in the Green Belt for determination by himself. The Court granted the application because recovering all appeals relating to Travellers' pitches put ethnic Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers at a disadvantage which constituted breach of Article 6 of the ECHR, amounted to unlawful indirect discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty had not been complied with.
Acting for the local housing authority on an appeal from HHJ McKenna sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge who decided that those living and working in adjoining parts of neighbouring local authorities, that is in Waltham Forest, Barnet, Haringey, Hertsmere Welwyn Hatfield and Broxbourne, should have been consulted in relation to the proposed additional licensing of non-exempt HMO's.
The duration of consultation for proposed selective licensing was also in issue. Lord Justice Elias granted permission to appeal on the papers. However, the Council then decided that even if it won the appeal in the light of new Regulations different statutory considerations would apply.
Lease v licence.
Elitestone Limited v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687 HL
Whether converted building was part of the realty or a removable fixture
Church Commissioners For England v Baines; Wellcome Trust Ltd v Hammad [1998] 2 WLR 156
Whether sub letting was protected tenancy
South Bucks DC v Porter [2003] 2 AC 558 The role of the Court in s 187Bs.
Wrexham CBC v National Assembly of Wales & Michael Berry [2003] EWCA Civ 835 Meaning of nomadic habit of life in the statutory definition
South Bucks DC v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953 (HL). Reasons
F v Birmingham CC [2007] HLR 18
Culmination to a series of challenges to finding that appellant was intentionally homeless. This appeal concerned whether or not section 191(2) of the Housing Act 1996 applied to a failure to investigate HB position in relation to larger accommodation.
Rowley v Rugby BC [2007] HLR 40
Whether homelessness review decision contained a deficiency for the purposes of the applicable regulations.
Williams v Birmingham CC [2008] HLR 4
In which it was held that duty to make inquiries into suitability of offered accommodation did not extend to considering the feasibility of maintaining same school, since child could move schools.
Wychavon DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 692; [2009]
Planning & Third Sector Law Reports 19: Green Belt case -meaning of very special circumstances .
(Baker & others ) v Secretary of State & Bromley LBC [2008] EWCA Civ 141 Race equality issues are a material consideration to a planning application
O'Brien v South Cambridgeshire DC [2008] EWCA Civ 835 Race equality issues are relevant to enforcement
Brightlingsea Haven Limited v Morris & others [2008] EWHC 1928 (QB)
Concerning terms of tenancy, section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, constructive trust of a lease and seasonal use of mobile home park, application of section 50 of Senior Courts Act 1981 & Jaggard v Sawyer principles [2009] EWHC 3061 (QB)
Defence Estates v JL [2009] EWHC 1049 (Admin)
Article 8 and public law defence to a possession claim, subsequently reported at enforcement stage [2012] EWHC 2216 (Admin)
Kakoulli v Fryer Ref 2011/027
Before the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry. Restriction on register -whether restriction should be cancelled. Registered transfers multiple grounds of challenge, duress, undue influence, non est factum, unilateral mistake, unconscionable bargain, estoppel, licence /constructive trust.
Delaney v SSCLG & Basildon BC [2012] EWHC 1303 (Admin) Whether breach of s 225 HA 2004 is a material consideration
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead v Smith [2012] EWCA Civ 997 Meaning of caravan in terms of an Injunction
Collins v SSCLG & Fylde BC [2013] EWCA Civ 1193 Scope and application of children's best interests
O'Connor v SSCLG & BANES [2012] EWHC 942 (Admin)
Failure to give substantial weight to need in circumstances where new policy imminent
Whether Inspector required to make a finding in relation to whether Romani Gypsy would have somewhere to move to if refused permission and whether refusal of a temporary permission in the Green Belt was irrational. The Court of Appeal said it was.
Regina (Flynn and another) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another [2014] 1 W.L.R. 3270
A "licence" within the meaning of section 174(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 meant a permission to enter and occupy the land in question, and could be a contractual licence or a bare licence; that the existence of an implied licence could be inferred from all the relevant circumstances, including the relationship between the parties involved and the circumstances in which the land was occupied; that, although the first claimant had no interest in the land, the planning inspectorate had erred in failing to consider whether or not she had an implied licence to occupy the land at the relevant times and so was a relevant occupier; and that, accordingly, the impugned decision would be quashed.
Byrne v Solihull MBC, Birmingham County Court, HHJ Worster BM30175A (March 2014) On a statutory appeal brought under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996, the Court quashed a decision that offered accommodation which the Appellant had refused on account of fear of violence, was both suitable and reasonable to accept. It was held that the housing authority's assessment of risk was flawed and the decision was perverse.
Eastwood v Surrey County Council, Guilford County Court, HHJ Raeside, 2RH00537
On appeal against a possession order obtained against trespassers, the possession order was set aside on account of the Council's failure to address the best interests of the child.
R (on the application of Eastwood) v Windsor and Maidenhead RLBC (2015) EWHC 151 (Admin)
The Court dismissed a judicial review of the local planning authority's decision to use direct action under section 178 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 to clear land occupied by Romany Gypsies, notwithstanding the lack of any lawful site to move to. The Court disagreed with the submission that it was perverse not to examine alternative sites and to proceed with site clearance without addressing how much longer it would take to fulfil the Secretary of State's expectation that new site provision would be available, thus avoiding the site residents having nowhere else to go to. Permission to appeal has now been granted by the Court of Appeal.
Begum v Birmingham City Council (2015) 3 Costs L.O. 387 -Before: Jackson, Bean and Sales LJJ
The court considered an appeal by a claimant against a costs order, which effectively wiped out the damages she had recovered in the litigation, where the claimant had succeeded in her claim for breach of statutory duty to notify her of defects prior to purchase under Part 5 of the Housing Act 1985, but failed in her claims for negligence and misrepresentation based upon substantially the same facts. The appeal was allowed. The proper way to reflect the claimant's lack of success on negligence and misrepresentation, having regard to the unusual facts of the case, was to make a discount of 15% from the claimant's costs. The claimant is to recover 85% of her costs. This case was distinguished from Beoco Ltd v Alfa Laval Co Ltd [1995] QB 137.
Regina (Moore and another) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
(Equalities and Human Rights Commission intervening) [2015] EWHC 44 (Admin)
The court considered the approach of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to the recovery and determination of planning appeals which related to the provision of Travellers' pitches within the green belt. The Court decided that the recoveries constituted indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 s.19 and a breach of the public sector equality duty contrary to s.149 of the Act. The Secretary of State had not shown that the delays caused to the determination of the appeals were necessary or justified and they had not been determined within a reasonable time, such that they were in breach of art.6 of the Convention. The relief granted was limited to the quashing of the two recoveries.
APP/G5180/C/13/2201809 & 2201810 15 July 2015
Permanent planning permission for Green Belt Traveller site granted on appeal after two inquiries, two judicial reviews of the Secretary of State and one appeal to the Court of Appeal. The appellant first contacted solicitors in 2010 in connection with defending the local planning authority's application for an Injunction that she leaves the land.
Stephen's work in this area includes:
Judicial review of the secretary of state's practice of recovering planning appeals involving Traveller sites in the Green Belt for determination by himself.
The Court granted the application because recovering all appeals relating to Travellers' pitches put ethnic Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers at a disadvantage which constituted breach of Article 6 of the ECHR, amounted to unlawful indirect discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty had not been complied with.
Contributor to Rewriting Children's Judgments From Academic Vision to New Practice, Hart (2017)
'Gypsy and Traveller sites: the revised planning definition’s impact on assessing accommodation needs', Equality & Human Rights Commission (2019)