Striking out — Interlocutory proceedings — Caravan site — Private law claim against local authority — Plaintiff contending that agreement for lease for reallocation of site existed — Council maintaining that public law rights involved — Striking out refused at first instance — Council’s appeal dismissed
The plaintiff was a gypsy in occupation of a pitch at Holbrook Caravan Site, owned by the defendants under a tenancy. The defendants, decided to carry out repair works requiring the site’s vacation. The defendants wrote to the occupiers requiring vacation and offering to reserve a tenancy on the site after completion of the works. The plaintiff refused to leave and the defendants commenced possession proceedings. Thereafter the parties agreed that the plaintiff would consent to a possession order and would then be treated in the same manner as the other occupiers who had accepted the original offer. However, after the refurbishment work was completed and the site reopened, the plaintiff’s application for a tenancy was refused. All other former residents were reinstated.
The plaintiff commenced proceedings for breach of agreement, but the defendant applied to strike out the proceedings on the ground, inter alia, that he could not succeed in his claim unless he could show that he had some private law right to a tenancy on the new site. He therefore had to show that there had been a binding agreement to grant a lease. However, a public body could not bind themself to exercise a future power in a particular way so as to give rise to a private law right and to recognise such a private law right would be contrary to public policy. At first instance the judge stated that even if one accepted that the allocation of places was a public law matter and subject to a discretion, it was none the less arguable that the council had decided how to deal with the allocation of places after refurbishment and so had exercised their discretion before getting the occupiers to move. Further, by withdrawing his proceedings the plaintiff had given the council good consideration for the agreement. Thus it was arguable that the contract was to reallocate a place and not simply to consider the plaintiff’s application. The council appealed.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The first point for the council was that there was no binding agreement to grant a lease. While the court accepted that, it was not the end of the matter. The alleged agreement was that the plaintiff was to be given a new site and treated in the same way as the other residents of the Long Acre site. However, while the other residents had been offered new sites, Mr Dutton had not.
2. The argument was that the caravan sites legislation created public law rights and duties and the agreement was wholly inconsistent with those rights and duties.
3. There was nothing to show however that such an inconsistency existed. The plaintiff’s pleadings in no way demonstrated an inconsistency between public rights and duties and the private law right by way of agreement that he asserted. He was entitled to pursue a private law claims: see Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family Practitioner Committee [1992] 1 AC 624.
4. While the appeal was dismissed that should not be taken as expressing a view as to the outcome of the case. The power to strike out claims as only to be exercised where it was clear that proceedings were doomed to fail.
Hilton Harrop-Griffiths (instructed by the solicitor to Sheffield City Council) appeared for the appellants; David Watkinson (instructed by John Howell & Co, of Sheffield) appeared for the respondents.
