Riccardo Calzavara

> People > Barristers > Riccardo Calzavara

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

He is a member of the Attorney General’s B Panel of Counsel. He is ranked in both the Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 directories of highly-rated barristers for social housing and for planning. He has appeared in more than 60 reported cases in the higher courts, including the Supreme Court.

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)), described him as presenting his submissions “with skill and moderation” (Ali v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 2220), remarked upon “the concision and clarity of [his] submissions” (Telford & Wrekin Council v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 2439 (Admin)), and noted the “attractive manner” in which he presents his submissions (Brent LBC v Howe [2024] EWCA Civ 1444).

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 a member of the Attorney General’s B Panel of Counsel. He has extensive public law experience and is instructed for and against public bodies in matters relating to all of Chambers’ core practice areas. He regularly advises in respect of and appears in claims for judicial review.

Recent cases
- R (Ivory) v Welwyn Hatfield BC [2025] EWCA Civ 21 – It will suffice to found a fresh application for homelessness assistance that an applicant advances new evidence in support of old facts, and there are circumstances in which an authority may reject a fresh application by reason of the applicant’s abuse.
- High Speed 2 (HS2) Ltd v Environment Agency, High Court (TCC), 1 November 2024 (unreported) – Where a party seeks to advance by legal proceedings the substance of a dispute that is caught by an arbitration agreement, the appropriate remedy is to obtain a stay under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996, not to seek a declaration pursuant to CPR Part 11.
- Lord Chancellor v MTA [2025] KB 151, CA – It is not an abuse of process to bring an originating claim for damages in respect of a judge’s alleged breach of a person’s art.5-6 rights without first appealing the impugned order.
- Environment Agency v High Speed 2 (HS2) Ltd [2024] BLR 467, TCC – The interests of the Environment Agency as protected by sch.33 Part 5 High Speed Rail (London to West Midlands) Act 2017 amount to an “asset” for the purposes of s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996, but it wasn’t “necessary” to make an injunction curtailing HS2 Ltd’s behaviour.
- R (Mileage Reclaim Ltd) v North Somerset Magistrates’ Court [2024] EWHC 1531 (Admin) – The existence of an alternative statutory remedy made it appropriate to refuse permission to proceed by way of judicial review notwithstanding the merits of the grounds being conceded.
- R (SK) v Windsor & Maidenhead RBC [2024] HLR 23, KB – The fact that a local housing authority has not produced a (lawful) housing needs assessment does not inexorably mean that any offer of accommodation will be unsuitable.
- R (Imam) v Croydon LBC [2025] AC 335, SC – 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’ or children’s barred list.
- MTA v 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 art.5-6 rights must appeal against the impugned order prior to bringing an originating claim for damages against the Lord Chancellor.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 does not give rise to direct race discrimination because of statutory exemptions 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 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, the appropriate means of challenging any refusal to extend interim accommodation is by 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 1) and Legal 500 (Tier 3) 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
- Brent LBC v Howe [2025] HLR 15, CA – As long as the RTB1 is served before the secure tenant’s (A) death, the family member’s (B) right to share the right to buy can be established after A’s death.
- 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 s.204 appeal 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 a s.204 appeal to determine allegations of disability-related discrimination.
- 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, the word is to be applied 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 is ranked in both Chambers & Partners (Band 5) and Legal 500 (Tier 3) for planning.

Riccardo represents the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, 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
- ATE Farms Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] EWHC 347 (Admin) – The Crooked House burnt down. The local planning authority required the owner to rebuild it. The owner appealed. The inspector refused to postpone the inquiry. The Planning Liaison Judge conclude at an urgent rolled-up hearing that the inspector had erred in concluding that he could determine the ground (a) appeal without considering evidence of the cause of the fire.
- Waterhouse v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2024] EWHC 2628 (Admin) – It was not appropriate to grant a 17-day extension of time in the context of a 28-day deadline. But the Planning Inspectorate should consider rewording the apparently standard information provided to parties upon determination of an appeal, as to how to take matters further.
- Lullington Solar Park Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2024] EWHC 295 (Admin) – In the context of a proposed solar farm, the inspector had not erred in criticising the developer’s failure to conduct wider soil analysis to avoid so far as possible best and most versatile land.
- Epic Capital UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2024] EWHC 588 (Admin) – Wenman v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] JPL 1030, QB remains good law; in order to bring a s.289 appeal the appellant must first serve a draft, and must then file it with the witness statement prescribed by CPR 54DPD para.6.4.
- Epping Forest DC v Halama [2023] EWHC 2906 (KB) – 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 [2024] JPL 427, KB – If a s.288 claim is filed 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, to remain in use as a single C4 dwelling house.
- 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.
- 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.
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 Marble Properties (London) Ltd [2025] UKUT 2 (LC) – The FTT must not conduct a review within the meaning of s.9 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 in order to bolster its underlying decision for better or additional reasons, nor may it conduct a review that does not arise from the grounds of appeal advanced.
- Bradford MDC v Kazi [2025] HLR 3, CA – The judge had been wrong to identify, whether in the authority’s policy or the FTT’s decision, the fettering of discretion.
- Waltham Forest LBC v Hussain [2024] KB 154, CA – When conducting an appeal from the local housing authority’s decision to refuse or revoke a penalty, the FTT 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 s.249A penalty, 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 FTT 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 FTT must respect, accept, and apply an authority’s policy in implementing s.249A penalties 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.
- 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 unquestionably a high flyer. His deep knowledge comes from appearing in the cases that change and develop the law.
Chambers UK Bar (2025)

Riccardo is a joy to work with.
Chambers UK Bar (2025)

Riccardo has the ability to grasp novel and intricate issues, drive to the heart of the matter concisely and formulate and present attractive and persuasive arguments in a lively and engaging way.
Chambers UK Bar (2025)

He is a wonderful methodical advocate.
Legal 500 (2025)

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)