Stoke on Trent CC v Frost
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1992) 64 P&CR 135-144(6)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: CA 15 November 1991. A caravan site was provided by the county council for gypsies under Caravan Sites Act 1968 s6. It was managed by S. F was a gypsy by birth who married Mr F in 1989 and was allowed by S to occupy a plot on the site. The licence under which they occupied the site provided for the termination of the licence on written notice by either party and contained a clause stating that misconduct could lead to termination of the licence. As a result of a series of alleged criminal acts by Mr F, S terminated the licence and a notice was issued. F refused to leave so S sought an order for possession and an injunction to restrain F from returning. F claimed that the site was protected under s1 of the 1968 Act and it followed that four weeks notice of termination had to be given, therefore the notice served was invalid. The judge in the first instance ruled in favour of S. F appealed. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that since 1980 following the insertion of a new paragra| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS47132 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 60906-1001 |
CA 15 November 1991. A caravan site was provided by the county council for gypsies under Caravan Sites Act 1968 s6. It was managed by S. F was a gypsy by birth who married Mr F in 1989 and was allowed by S to occupy a plot on the site. The licence under which they occupied the site provided for the termination of the licence on written notice by either party and contained a clause stating that misconduct could lead to termination of the licence. As a result of a series of alleged criminal acts by Mr F, S terminated the licence and a notice was issued. F refused to leave so S sought an order for possession and an injunction to restrain F from returning. F claimed that the site was protected under s1 of the 1968 Act and it followed that four weeks notice of termination had to be given, therefore the notice served was invalid. The judge in the first instance ruled in favour of S. F appealed. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that since 1980 following the insertion of a new paragra