PracticeStephen has an established practice in housing and landlord and tenant covering most areas particularly equality issues, homelessness, possession claims, housing standards and disrepair, mortgage repossessions, mobile homes , proprietary estoppel and adverse possession. Stephen also represents before the Upper Tribunal ( Lands Chamber) and in the Residential Property Tribunal as well as in Planning Inquiries. Stephen acted in the successful application to the European Court in case of McCann v UK. As well as being a member of ALBA and HLPA Stephen is also in the Planning and Environmental Bar Association arising out of his interest in land use issues, low impact development and work in relation to Gypsies and Travellers. He was short listed as a finalist for Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year 2010. He has co authored Using the Housing Act 2004 (Jordans) and edited and contributed to The Housing Law Handbook (Law Society 2009). Stephen is referred to by interviewees of 2012 Chambers & Partners as having "exceptional commitment," " understanding very difficult areas of law " and "is very good at getting his arguments across". Stephen is able to take work through Direct Access. Notable Cases1. Baker v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ141] establishing that race equality issues are a material consideration in planning decisions , not just at planning appeals but at 1st instance. 2. O'Brien v South Cambridgeshire DC [2008] EWCA Civ 1159 established that local planning authorities must consider for themselves the equality implications of enforcing planning control after Irish Travellers' earlier unsuccessful appeal to the secretary of state . 3. McCann v United Kingdom (App no 19009/04), 13 May 2008 (2008) 47 EHRR 913- Stephen won this case at 1st instance before Qazi in the House of Lords was decided , then lost in Court of Appeal and took the case to the European Court of Human Rights which involved detailed written submissions. The Court gave classic exposition of Article 8 as we always understood it, recently influential in decision of Manchester CC v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45; 4. Defence Estates v L [2009] EWHC 1049 (Admin) [2010] EWCA Civ 432 ;[2010] EWCA Civ 969 - Defence Estates claimed possession of premises originally owned by the Ministry of Defence then subject to a sale and lease back arrangement, where the Defendant and her daughters had been living since 1989 without security of tenure. The Defendant argued that the original decisions to issue the notice to quit and commence proceedings were flawed, since the first at least, was made without acknowledgment or realisation of the disabilities under which both Mrs JL and her children and grandson suffer. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervened.
It was contended that as a matter of law it was incumbent upon the Defence Estates as a public authority to take those disabilities into account in one of three ways. In relation, firstly, to the decision and whether it was reasonable in the light of those disabilities to seek possession having regard to Article 8 and the very long time that she had been allowed to remain there; and secondly, under section 49A of the Disability (Discrimination) Act 1995 in which, as Patten LJ recognised, the question for the Defence Estates was whether they ought to have afforded her greater latitude and a greater time to move having regard to the disabilities both of herself and her family. It was contended that it would be disproportionate for the Defendant to have to move to temporary accommodation. The appeal was dismissed but the Defendant remains pending further negotiations. 5. Brightlingsea Haven Ltd v Morris & Ors [2008] EWHC 1928 (QB) [2009] EWHC 3061: The Claimant claimed injunctions in order to enforce restrictions on the Defendants' day time use of their mobile homes. The Defendants claimed declaratory relief based on proprietary estoppel and or constructive trust. The Claimant contended that no constructive trust arose and any proprietary estoppel was defeated by section 2 of the Law Reform ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. The Defendant's day time use all the year round put the Claimant in breach of planning control, the site licence and the terms of the headlease. There were rent issues which went to mediation and issues of misrepresentation and whether the land was a protected site such that the Mobile Homes Act 1983 applied. Shortly before the Court of Appeal hearing the case settled.
6.Flynn v Basildon BC [2011] EWCA 1226 :-Claim made under the Human Rights Act concerning the unauthorised encampment at Dale Farm and the adequacy of judicial review and whether principles of res judicata meant no injunction should issue. Court decided that because the matter concerned a different statutory code to that which the Supreme Court was considering in Manchester CC v Pinnock, only a supervisory jurisdiction was appropriate Previous important decisions :- Westminster CC v Clarke [1992] 2 WLR 229 (HL) ;Elitestone Ltd v Morris ; [1997] 1 WLR 687(HL) ;Church Commissioners For England v Baines : Ebied & Anor V Hopkins & Anor : Wellcome Trust Ltd V Hammad (1998) 2 WLR 156 ;South Bucks DC v Porter, Wrexham CBC v Berry , Chichester DC v Searle and others ; [2003] 2 AC 558 (HL) ;Wrexham County Borough Council V (1) National Assembly Of Wales (2) Michael Berry (3) Florence Berry [2003] EWCA Civ 835 ;South Bucks DC v First Secretary of State & Porter (No 2). [2004] 1 WLR 1953(HL) Wychavon District Council v (1) Secretary Of State For Communities & Local Government (2) Kathleen Butler (3) Leonard Butler [2008] EWCA Civ 692
Publications
Stephen is co author of the Jordans books "The Housing Act 2004 A Practical Guide" and "Using the Housing Act 2004" and has contributed articles to the Solicitors Journal and The Journal of Housing Law. He is a contributor to the Law Society's Housing Law Handbook.
Professional Memberships Profile updated January 2012
|
