Riccardo Calzavara

> People > Barristers > Riccardo Calzavara

Riccardo specialises in public law and judicial review, housing and homelessness, and planning law.

He is a member of the Attorney General’s C Panel of Counsel and of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s panel of counsel. He is ranked in both the Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 directories of highly-rated barristers. He has appeared in more than 45 reported cases in the higher courts, including the Supreme Court.

Clients describe Riccardo as an “enthusiastic” and “terrific barrister” who “works in partnership with [them] throughout the case” and who is happy to “take the lead”. He “give[s] a very professional service”, is “very attentive to detail”, and produces “well-argued skeleton arguments”. Riccardo’s “written and oral advocacy is persuasive, and he wins over judges easily, even in cases which seem un-winnable”.

Judges have lauded his “very careful submissions” (HS (Bangladesh) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 446), commended the “extraordinarily helpful way” in which he puts his case (UBT Pty Ltd v Moffitt [2017] EWHC 3251 (Ch)), and described him as presenting his submissions “with skill and moderation” (Ali v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 2220).

He is qualified to accept instructions on a Public Access basis directly from members of the public.

Expertise

Public Law and Judicial Review
Riccardo is is a member of the Attorney General’s C Panel of Counsel and a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s panel of counsel. He has extensive experience in public law claims and is instructed for and against public bodies in matters relating to all of Chambers’ core practice areas. He regularly advises and appears in claims for judicial review.

He has recently been instructed in the High Court and Court of Appeal in applications under s.222 Local Government Act 1972, in judicial review claims arising out of local authorities’ homelessness function, in immigration appeals from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in welfare benefits cases in the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), and in inquests before HM Coroner. He regularly advises in unlawful detention claims in the High Court and County Court.

He is a contributor to the local government law section of LexisPSL.

Recent cases
- R (Imam) v Croydon LBC [2023] UKSC 45 – Resources are relevant to whether a mandatory order should be made compelling compliance with a statutory duty.
- AA v Disclosure and Barring Service [2023] UKUT 110 (AAC) – Notwithstanding the appellant having engaged in “relevant conduct”, it had not been proportionate to include her on the adults’ barred list or the children’s barred list.
- MTA v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2023] 1 WLR 2197, KB – There is no blanket rule requiring that a person aggrieved by a judge’s alleged breach of his rights under art.5-6 ECHR must appeal against the apparently offending order prior to bringing a claim for damages against the Lord Chancellor pursuant to s.9 Human Rights Act 1998.
- R (Kalonga) v Croydon LBC [2022] PTSR 1568, CA – There is no power to accept a late review request of the landlord’s decision not to grant a new tenancy after expiry of the fixed term of a flexible tenancy.
- The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v MF [UA-2020-111-CHB], AAC (17 February 2022)– The Judge had erred in failing to consider whether the respondent’s son was made subject to an interim care order solely to safeguard his health, affecting her entitlement to child benefit.
- R (Kalonga) v Croydon LBC [2021] PTSR 1953, QB – There is no power to accept a late review request of the landlord’s decision not to grant a new tenancy after expiry of the fixed term of a flexible tenancy.
- Fuseon Ltd v Senior Courts Costs Office [2020] Costs LR 251, QB – The Master erred in upholding the determining officer’s assessment of the costs payable out of central funds to a private prosecutor, causing “very substantial prejudice” to the claimant. His decision, including his refusal to certify a point of principle of general importance, was quashed.
- Creighton v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [CE/505/2019], AAC (6 December 2019) – It was wrong to presume that an out-of-work person who was not currently at a substantial risk of harm would not be at such risk were he at work.
- R (Goloshvili) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] HLR 37, QB (heard with R (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] HLR 35, QB) – The right-to-rent scheme contained in the Immigration Act 2014 does not give rise to direct race discrimination because of statutory exemptions contained in the Equality Act 2010 and visited upon the Secretary of State.
- HS (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] Imm AR 972, CA – The question whether family life exists for the purposes of Art.8 ECHR is binary, and does not admit of degrees of sufficiency.
- Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2220 – The words “time spent… studying” within the Immigration Rules were to be determined solely by reference to the dates contained in the Certificate of Acceptance for Studies, and did not require consideration of the time actually spent studying.
- Birmingham CC v Ditta, High Court (QB), 3 April 2018 (unreported) – A contemnor who knew that an injunction existed could not defend an application for his committal on the basis that he did not know what it restrained him from doing because he had not acquainted himself with its terms.
- R (Davis) v Watford BC [2018] 1 WLR 3157, CA – Where a homeless person appeals against the authority’s s.184 decision (rather than its s.202 review decision), the appropriate means of challenging any refusal to extend interim accommodation is by way of judicial review, not by s.204A appeal.
- R (Edwards) v Birmingham CC [2016] HLR 11, QB – The local authority’s homelessness function did not contain the alleged systemic gatekeeping practices.
Housing
Riccardo is ranked in both Chambers & Partners (Band 2) and Legal 500 (Tier 4) for housing.

He has extensive experience of the whole range of housing law matters at first instance and on appeal. He is regularly instructed in homelessness appeals under ss.204-204A Housing Act 1996 and related judicial review claims, including on an urgent basis and out of hours.

He is the Consultant Editor of the Housing Volume of Halsbury’s Laws of England (2022). He is also the Contributing Author to the Housing Volume of the Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents (2023).

Recent cases
- Zaman v Waltham Forest LBC [2023] PTSR 1643, CA – As long as one ground of appeal satisfies the second appeals test, permission to appeal may be granted in respect of any number of grounds that do not.
- Croydon LBC v Kalonga [2023] AC 1, SC – A fixed-term secure tenancy may be determined during its term for fault if it contains a forfeiture clause, by seeking a termination order, and on the management grounds if it contains a break clause, by seeking a possession order.
- Croydon LBC v Kalonga [2021] QB 962, CA – A flexible tenancy may only be determined by the landlord during the fixed term by the forfeiture-like route in s.82(3) Housing Act 1985.
- Stanley v Welwyn Hatfield BC [2021] HLR 12, CA – When agreeing an extension of time for carrying out a homelessness review there is no requirement that a specific end date is set.
- Croydon LBC v Kalonga [2020] 1 WLR 4809, QB – A flexible tenancy may only be determined during the fixed term if it contains a forfeiture clause.
- James v Hertsmere BC [2020] 1 WLR 3606, CA – The County Court has jurisdiction in a homelessness appeal under s.204 Housing Act 1996 to consider “contracting out” arguments, but such arguments will invariably fail where the authority has ratified any underlying decision.
- Adesotu v Lewisham LBC [2019] 1 WLR 5637, CA – The County Court does not have jurisdiction in a homelessness appeal under s.204 Housing Act 1996 to determine allegations of disability-related discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
- Brent LBC v Alibkhiet [2019] HLR 15, CA – Authorities are not required to search for accommodation over a number of days before concluding that it is not reasonably practicable to secure it in-borough.
- Kamara v Southwark LBC [2019] PTSR 279, CA – There is no requirement upon an authority to specifically inform an applicant for homelessness assistance that he can make his review representations at a face-to-face meeting.
- Davies v Hertfordshire CC [2018] 1 WLR 4609, CA – It is permissible to raise a defence to a claim for possession under s.11 Children Act 2004 notwithstanding the lack of a private law right to possession.
- Panayiotou v Waltham Forest LBC [2018] QB 1232, CA – When deciding whether a person is “significantly” more vulnerable for the purposes of determining whether he has a priority need for housing, within the meaning of s.189 Housing Act 1996, it is necessary to apply the word in a qualitative – not quantitative – sense.
- Watts v Stewart [2018] Ch 423, CA – The longstanding exclusion of almspersons from security of tenure fairly balances their interests against those of the charity, so that it does not give rise to unlawful discrimination within the meaning of art.14 ECHR.
- Bucknall v Dacorum BC [2017] HLR 40, QB – It is a question of fact whether a person occupies accommodation “as a dwelling” following the authority’s acceptance of the main housing duty, within the meaning of s.193 Housing Act 1996.
- Trindade v Hackney LBC [2017] HLR 37, CA – To be unaware of a relevant fact, within the meaning of the intentional homelessness provisions in s.195 Housing Act 1996, an applicant must be unaware of a current fact, not some future possibility.
- Hertfordshire CC v Davies [2017] 1 WLR 4395, QB – The differential treatment between service occupiers and other tenants of local authorities is objectively justifiable, falling within the wide margin of appreciation afforded to Parliament, so that their exclusion from security of tenure does not give rise to unlawful discrimination within the meaning of art.14 ECHR.
- Holley v Hillingdon LBC [2017] PTSR 127, CA – The period of a person’s residence, however long, is insufficient to found a proportionality defence in the second succession context.
Planning and Environment
Riccardo represents the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, local planning authorities, developers, and interested parties in judicial review claims, s.288 statutory reviews, s.289 appeals, planning inquiries and hearings, and in related prosecutions. He has a particular interest in technical issues arising in such claims; see below.

He is a contributor to the planning law section of LexisPSL and to the LexisNexis case analysis service for planning decisions.

Recent cases
- Epping Forest DC v Halama, High Court (KB), 16 October 2023 (unreported) – Where a witness summons had been sent (in time) by email without the requisite prior consent, the resisting party was entitled to have it set aside as of right. The consequences of non-compliance with a summons are such that it was not appropriate to dispense with, or order alternative, service.
- Telford and Wrekin Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 2439 (Admin) – If a claim for planning statutory review is filed (by the claimant) in time but served out of time because it is issued (by the court) out of time, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain it.
- Holystone Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 1739 (Admin) – The claimant was wrong to suggest that when determining whether to grant (s.73) planning permission in the Green Belt, the task for the inspector was simply to compare the proposal with any fallback, rather than to consider it afresh.
- Redrow Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] JPL 1437, KB – In the context of an attempt to bypass a s.106 agreement by an application for planning permission under s.73, the Inspector had properly understood her function, and had given adequate reasons for dismissing the appeal.
- NAI Lounge Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 582 (Admin) – The Planning Inspectorate not having provided the appellant with some of the evidence relied upon by the local planning authority gave rise to procedural unfairness, and offended the principle that justice must be seen to be done.
- Welwyn Hatfield BC v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] JPL 684, KB – It is in principle possible for a house that includes a mixture of self-contained and shared residential accommodation, so that it is a house in multiple occupation with the meaning of s.254 Housing Act 2004, to remain in use as a single dwellinghouse falling within the scope of Use Class C4.
- Murtagh v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2022] EWHC 2991 (Admin) – When considering an application for prior approval in respect of a telecommunications mast, the inspector had been required to consider siting on an alternative existing mast proposed by the claimant, and the effect on a protected tree.
- Abbots Ride Land Ltd v Surrey CC [2019] EWHC 3560 (QB) – It was for the claimant to prove that a public right of way did not exist over its land; while the trial judge was wrong to conclude that there had been an express dedication of that land, she was entitled to find that dedication and acceptance could be inferred.
- Stroud DC v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, High Court (Admin), 9 August 2019 (unreported) – A latter grant of planning permission relating only to operational development did not override conditions attached to a prior grant relating also to a change of use, and the Secretary of State’s inspector had not acted irrationally in any of the four ways asserted by the local planning authority in part-granting permission.
- Riccardo Calzavara and Matt Lewin appointed to the Attorney General’s C Panel23 Jan 2019
Property
Riccardo accepts instructions from residential and commercial landlords and tenants throughout the court and tribunal systems, particularly in matters relating to property licensing.

Recent cases
- Waltham Forest LBC v Hussain [2023] HLR 40, CA – When conducting an appeal from the local housing authority’s decision to refuse or revoke a penalty, the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is to consider whether the authority’s decision was wrong only by reference to facts that existed at the time of its decision.
- Waltham Forest LBC v Rahman [2023] UKUT 139 (LC) – In an appeal against a penalty imposed under s.249A Housing Act 2004 the FTT is empowered to increase the penalty in the light of further information provided by the appellant during the hearing.
- Knapp v Bristol CC [2023] UKUT 118 (LC) – The first occasion on which the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) considered banning orders within the meaning of Part 2 Housing and Planning Act 2016.
- Waltham Forest LBC v Hussain [2023] HLR 1, LC – When considering an appeal against the authority’s decision to refuse a licence application or revoke an existing licence, the First-tier Tribunal is entitled to have regard to matters that were not in existence at the time of the authority’s decision.
- Ralph v Ralph [2021] 4 WLR 128, CA – In order to rectify the declaration of trust it was necessary that the parties shared a continuing common intention at the time it was entered into.
- Hussain v Waltham Forest LBC [2021] 1 WLR 922, CA – The fact that a conviction has become spent does not preclude the conduct underlying it from being taken into account; such conduct is distinct from the “circumstances ancillary” to the conviction.
- Ralph v Ralph [2020] EWHC 3348 (QB) – There is no absolute rule that the court will not rectify a document for common mistake in the absence of a pleaded (counter-) claim.
- Waltham Forest LBC v Marshall [2020] 1 WLR 3187, LC – The First-tier Tribunal must respect, accept, and apply an authority’s policy in implementing financial penalties within the meaning of s.249A Housing Act 2004 unless the appellant provides good reason for departing from it.
- Hussain v Waltham Forest LBC [2020] 1 WLR 2723, LC – When deciding whether an applicant is a “fit and proper” person to hold a licence, local authorities are permitted to consider the circumstances – including the conduct – underlying a spent conviction notwithstanding the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
- Universal Business Team Pty Ltd v Moffitt [2017] EWHC 3251 (Ch) – Where a search order had been deliberately thwarted in a number of ways, such that a serious contempt of court had been committed, the minimum appropriate sentence was an immediate custodial sentence of 14 months.
- Leaseholders of Foundling Court and O’Donnell Court v Camden LBC [2017] L&TR 7, LC – The statutory obligation under s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to consult in respect of qualifying works falls on the landlord who intends to carry out the works, not an intermediate landlord.

Riccardo is technically very strong and always practical. He is thorough and well prepared in all that he does. Nothing seems to faze him in court.
Legal 500 (2024)

Riccardo’s advocacy is smooth and his delivery in court is one of complete control and precision and attention to fine detail – and this is down to his meticulous preparation.
Legal 500 (2023)