Riccardo Calzavara

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 and associated applications, including on an interim basis.

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

• Fuseon Ltd v SCCO [2019] EWHC 126 (Admin); [2020] Costs LR 251 – The Master  erred in upholding the determining officer's assessment of the costs payable out of central funds to a private prosecutor; that error caused "very substantial prejudice" to the claimant. It followed that his decision, and the decision not to certify a point of principle of general importance, fell quashed.
• Creighton v SSWP, Upper Tribunal (AAC), 6 December 2019 (unreported) – It was insufficient to infer without further evidence from (i) the premise that a person not currently in work was not at a substantial risk of harm to (ii) the conclusion that he would not be at such risk at work.
• R (Goloshvili) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 614 (Admin); [2019] HLR 37 (heard with R (JCWI) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 452 (Admin); [2019] HLR 35) – 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 SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 268; [2019] Imm AR 972 – 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 SSHD [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 (QBD), 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] EWCA Civ 529; [2018] 1 WLR 3157 – Where a homeless person appeals against the authority's s.184 decision (rather than their 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] EWHC 173 (Admin); [2016] HLR 11 – The local authority's homelessness function did not contain the alleged systemic gatekeeping practices.

Riccardo is ranked in both Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 for housing.

He has 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 recently re-drafted the "Allocation" series for LexisPSL.

Recent cases

• Croydon LBC v Kalonga [2021] EWCA Civ 77 – To determine a flexible tenancy during its term it is necessary that the agreement contains a forfeiture clause, and that possession is sought through the forfeiture-like route in s.82(3) Housing Act 1985.
• Stanley v Welwyn Hatfield BC [2020] EWCA Civ 1458; [2021] HLR 12 – 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] EWHC 1353 (QB); [2020] 1 WLR 4809 – A flexible tenancy can be determined during its fixed term in any of the ways listed in s.82(1A) Housing Act 1985, but in order to recover possession the tenancy must contain a forfeiture clause.
• James v Hertsmere BC [2020] EWCA Civ 489; [2020] 1 WLR 3606 – 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] EWCA Civ 1405; [2019] 1 WLR 5637 – 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 [2018] EWCA Civ 2742; [2019] HLR 15 – 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 [2018] EWCA Civ 1616; [2019] PTSR 279 – 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] EWCA Civ 379; [2018] 1 WLR 4609 – 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 [2017] EWCA Civ 1624; [2018] QB 1232 – 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.
• Bucknall v Dacorum BC [2017] EWHC 2094 (QB); [2017] HLR 40 – 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, but prior to the discharge of that duty.
• Trindade v Hackney LBC [2017] EWCA Civ 942; [2017] HLR 37 – An applicant will not be unaware of a relevant fact, within the meaning of the intentional homelessness provisions in s.195 Housing Act 1996, if he is unaware of some future possibility; he must be unaware of some current fact.
• Hertfordshire CC v Davies [2017] EWHC 1488 (QB); [2017] 1 WLR 4395 – 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.
• Watts v Stewart [2016] EWCA Civ 1247; [2018] Ch 423 – 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.
• Holley v Hillingdon LBC [2016] EWCA Civ 1052; [2017] PTSR 127 – The period of a person's residence, however long, will not be sufficient on its own to found a proportionality defence in the second succession context.

Riccardo has a growing planning and highways practice. He represents the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, local authorities, developers, and interested parties at ss.288-289 statutory reviews, inquiries, and hearings, and in prosecutions. 

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

Recent cases

• 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 SSHCLG, 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 accepts instructions from residential and commercial landlords and tenants throughout the court and tribunal systems.

Recent cases

• 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.
• Hussain v Waltham Forest LBC [2020] EWCA Civ 1539; [2021] 1 WLR 922 – The fact that a conviction has become spent does not preclude the conduct underlying it being taken into account; such conduct is distinct from the "circumstances ancillary" to the conviction.
• Waltham Forest LBC v Marshall [2020] UKUT 35 (LC); [2020] 1 WLR 3187 – 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 [2019] UKUT 339 (LC); [2020] 1 WLR 2723 – 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 provisions of 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 [2016] UKUT 366 (LC); [2017] L&TR 7 – 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.