[2005] EWCA Civ 289, 2 March 2005. Considers whether appellant gypsies (P) were entitled to argue in defence, against respondent local authority's (L) order for possession of land, occupied by P without consent and indisputably owned by L. That such possession would infringe their rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 8. In the HC decision, the judge held that P could not raise the Art 8 defence as he was bound to follow "Harrow LBC v Qazi" ([2003] UKHL 43, Abs67176), which was not incompatible with the European Court of Human Rights' decision "Connors v United Kingdom" (66746/01, [2005] 40 EHHR 9). P appealed on the grounds that "Qazi" was incompatible with "Connors" and "Connors" must be followed to account for the European Court's decisions. "Held": appeal dismissed. The reasoning in "Connors" could not be confined to gypsies and "Connors" could not be seen as identifying a discrete exception to the general rule propounded by the majority in "Qazi". If the court followed "Connors" it would subvert the principle of legal certainty. "Qazi" had to be followed but permission would be granted to appeal to HL if requested and not successfully opposed.