Riccardo Calzavara

> People > Barristers > Riccardo Calzavara

Riccardo is an administrative and public lawyer with a particular emphasis on property-related matters, ranging from homelessness through private-sector regulation to planning.

He is ranked across Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 for Administrative Law and Human Rights, Local Government, Social Housing, and Planning. He is a member of the Attorney General’s B Panel of Counsel. He has appeared in more than 70 reported cases in the higher courts, including the Supreme Court.

Judges have lauded his “very careful submissions” (HS (Bangladesh) v SSHD [2019] Imm AR 972, CA), 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 [2024] JPL 427, KB), and noted the “attractive manner” in which he presents his case (Brent LBC v Howe [2025] 1 WLR 1751, CA).

Most recently, the Court of Appeal was “grateful to Mr Calzavara… who, despite being instructed only two days before the hearing, provided a skeleton argument of the highest quality and oral submissions to match” (Manchester CC v Tabbasam [2026] HLR 24, CA).

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

Expertise

Public Law & Judicial Review
Riccardo is ranked in Legal 500 (Tier 4) for Administrative Law and Human Rights. He is a member of the Attorney General’s B Panel of Counsel. He has extensive public law experience acting for and against public bodies.

Recent cases
- 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.
- R (Mileage Reclaim Ltd) v North Somerset Magistrates’ Court [2024] EWHC 1531 (Admin) – Notwithstanding the merits having been conceded, it was appropriate to refuse permission to proceed by way of judicial review in light of an alternative statutory.
- AA v DBS [2023] UKUT 110 (AAC) – It was not proportionate to include the appellant on the adults’ or children’s barred list.
- MTA v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2023] 1 WLR 2197, KB – 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.
- HMRC v MF [UA-2020-111-CHB], AAC (17 February 2022)– The judge 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.
- Fuseon Ltd v SCCO [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 SSWP [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.
- HS (Bangladesh) v SSHD [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 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.
- 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.
Housing
Riccardo is ranked in both Chambers & Partners (Band 1) and Legal 500 (Tier 2) for Social Housing. He has extensive experience of the whole range of housing law matters at first instance and on appeal. He is the Consultant Editor of the Housing Volume of Halsbury’s Laws of England (2022) and the Contributing Author to the Housing Volume of the Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents (2023).

Recent cases
- R (Olaifa) v Bexley LBC [2026] EWHC 1945 (Admin) – Although permission had been given for the claim to proceed, it was appropriate to address whether it should be considered in substance. It should not: further accommodation had been offered and any suitability challenge fell to be considered in respect of that accommodation.
- City of London v Bussandra [2026] HLR 13, CA – The fact that a mental health problem played a significant role in an act or omission that is the operative cause of a person’s homelessness does not mean that it was not “deliberate”.
- R (Ivory) v Welwyn Hatfield BC [2025] PTSR 1179, CA – Advancing new evidence in support of “old” facts will suffice to found a fresh application for homelessness assistance.
- Brent LBC v Howe [2025] 1 WLR 1751, CA – As long as the RTB1 is served before the secure tenant’s death, the family member’s right to share the right to buy can be established after the tenant’s death.
- R (SK) v Windsor & Maidenhead RBC [2024] HLR 23, KB – 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.
- 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 grounds that do not.
- 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.
- Croydon LBC v Kalonga [2023] AC 1, SC – A fixed-term secure tenancy may be determined by termination order during its term if it contains a forfeiture clause.
- 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.
- 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 s.204 appeal to determine allegations of disability-related discrimination.
- R (Goloshvili) v SSHD [2019] HLR 37, QB (heard with R (JCWI) v SSHD[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.
- Brent LBC v Alibkhiet [2019] HLR 15, CA – Local housing 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 a local housing authority to inform an applicant for homelessness assistance that he can make review representations at a face-to-face meeting.
- R (Davis) v Watford BC [2018] 1 WLR 3157, CA – Where a homeless applicant appeals against the local housing authority’s s.184 decision, any challenge to the authority’s refusal to extend interim accommodation must be brought by judicial review, not by s.204A appeal.
- Davies v Hertfordshire CC [2018] 1 WLR 4609, CA – It is permissible to raise a defence to a claim for possession in reliance upon 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.
- Bucknall v Dacorum BC [2017] HLR 40, QB – It is a question of fact whether a person occupies accommodation “as a dwelling” following the local housing authority’s acceptance of the main housing duty.
- Trindade v Hackney LBC [2017] HLR 37, CA – To be unaware of a relevant fact, and therefore not intentionally homeless, 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 housing 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- R (Edwards) v Birmingham CC [2016] HLR 11, QB – The local housing authority’s homelessness function did not contain the alleged systemic gatekeeping practices.
Planning & Environment
Riccardo is ranked in both Chambers & Partners (Band 5) and Legal 500 (Tier 3) for Planning. He advises and appears for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, local planning authorities, developers, and interested parties in judicial review claims, s.288 reviews, and s.289 appeals. 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
- FWS Carter & Sons Ltd v SSHCLG [2026] EWHC 2011 (Admin) – It is “reasonably arguable” that the decision that s.174(2A) applies may be challenged by s.289 appeal notwithstanding having been reached by an administrative officer, rather than the inspector.
- Arun DC v SSHCLG [2026] EWHC 1172 (Admin) – If a s.288 claim for statutory review is not effectively served on all of the necessary defendants, the court will lack jurisdiction to determine it.
- R (Barbican Quarter Organisation Ltd) v City of London [2026] EWHC 687 (Admin) – Notwithstanding the City’s failure to comply with the arrangements it had put in place under reg.64 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017/571 it was highly likely that the outcome would have been the same, so that relief was refused.
- Connors v SSHCLG [2025] EWHC 2701 (Admin) – Failure to include the email address on which service was effected amounted to failure to provide the “place of service” within the meaning of 54DPD para.6.4(d), so that the appeal was never brought.
- R (Morris Homes Ltd) v SSHCLG [2025] EWHC 3236 (Admin) – On a s.106B appeal the question is whether the useful purpose of the obligation is capable of being achieved.
- ATE Farms Ltd v SSHCLG [2025] JPL 1298, KB – 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 concluded 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.
- High Speed 2 (HS2) Ltd v EA, 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.
- Waterhouse v SSHCLG [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.
- EA 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.
- Lullington Solar Park Ltd v SSLUHC [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 SSLUHC [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.
- Telford and Wrekin Council v SSLUHC [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 SSLUHC [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 SSLUHC [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.
- NAI Lounge Ltd v SSLUHC [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 SSLUHC [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 SSLUHC [2022] EWHC 2991 (Admin) – When considering an application for prior approval in respect of a telecommunications mast, the Inspector had been required to consider an alternative site 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 judge was wrong to conclude that there had been an express dedication of that land, she had been 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.
Local Government
Riccardo is ranked in Chambers and Partners (Tier 3) for Local Government, being one of only 10 ranked juniors.

He deals with all species of matters arising under the Housing Act 2004, the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the Tenant Fees Act 2019, and the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. He deals in particular with matters relating to housing conditions (including improvement notices and prohibition orders), licensing (including management orders), financial penalties (under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, the Housing Act 1988, the Housing Act 2004, and the Renters’ Rights Act 2025), rent repayment orders, banning orders, and orders for recovery of prohibited payments. He regularly appears in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) and beyond in relation to such matters, even when he was not instructed at first instance.

Recent cases
- R (Howard de Walden Estates Ltd) v Westminster CC [2026] EWHC 1731 (Admin) – It is not irrational for an authority to rely on data modelling, rather than field testing, to satisfy itself that the relevant conditions are satisfied for the designation of an area as subject to selective (and by extension additional) licensing.
- Manchester CC v Tabbasam [2026] HLR 24, CA – There is no bar on a person advancing a reasonable excuse defence notwithstanding any statutory notice giving rise to the offence having been effectively served pursuant to s.233 Local Government Act 1972.
- Investview Ltd v Tandridge DC [2025] UKUT 405 (LC) – In determining whether a crowding and space hazard exists in self-contained residential property it is appropriate to consider HMO space standards by analogy.
- Waltham Forest LBC v John [2025] UKUT 234 (LC) – It was appropriate to quash the penalty imposed on the landlord who had “little or no culpability” notwithstanding her commission of a criminal offence.
- 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 local housing 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 under the Housing Act 2004 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, even if they were not known at that time.
- 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 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 local housing 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 a local housing authority’s policy in implementing s.249A penalties unless the appellant provides good reason for departing from it on the facts of the case.
- 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 housing 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.

An outstanding junior.
Chambers UK Bar (2027)

Firm, confident, and persuasive.
Legal 500 (2027)

Unerringly fantastic.
Chambers UK Bar (2027)

Great client manner.
Legal 500 (2027)

Advocacy with a smile.
Legal 500 (2027)

Laser-focused.
Chambers UK Bar (2026)

Tenacious advocacy.
Chambers UK Bar (2026)

His knowledge of homelessness law is exceptional.
Legal 500 (2026)

Fierce and confident.
Legal 500 (2026)

Unquestionably a high flyer.
Chambers UK Bar (2025)

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)

A wonderful methodical advocate.
Legal 500 (2025)

Nothing seems to faze him in court.
Legal 500 (2024)

Complete control and precision.
Legal 500 (2023)

A formidable advocate.
Chambers UK Bar (2022)

Brilliant.
Chambers UK Bar (2021)

He has the drive, determination and extreme intellect to go far.
Chambers UK Bar (2020)

He's able to absorb significant amounts of information swiftly.
Chambers UK Bar (2019)

About Riccardo

Directory Quotes
- Social Housing – “Riccardo is a brilliant housing barrister. He has an amazing breadth of knowledge at his fingertips. He can explain complex legal matters in such a way that makes them really easy to understand. In court, he is firm, confident, and persuasive.” Legal 500 2027
- Planning – “Incredibly bright, with a fantastically analytical legal brain and a great client manner.” Legal 500 2027
- Administrative Law and Human Rights – “As an advocate, he is able to present the case with clarity and force, with realism in submission and determination in his advocacy with a smile.” Legal 500 2027
- Planning – “Unerringly fantastic.” Chambers and Partners 2027
- Planning – “An outstanding junior with exceptional drafting skills.” Chambers and Partners 2027
- Local Government – “He is a confident advocate with a clear understanding of the legal arguments.” Chambers and Partners 2027
- Social Housing – “Riccardo Calzavara is excellent.” Chambers and Partners 2027
- Social Housing – “Riccardo is very practical and comes up with innovative solutions to quite knotty legal cases.” Chambers and Partners 2027
- Social Housing – “His ability to pay such close attention to every fact, procedural point and submission, while keeping laser-focused on the primary objective and strategy is particularly impressive.” Chambers and Partners 2026
- Social Housing – “Riccardo is a great advocate. He is sensible and pragmatic in the face of pressure and able to cut through irrelevant complexities.” Chambers and Partners 2026
- Social Housing – “Riccardo is extremely approachable and supportive.” Chambers and Partners 2026
- Planning – “Riccardo is well loved by clients and produces both high-quality work and tenacious advocacy.” Chambers and Partners 2026
- Social Housing – “Riccardo is knowledgeable and his knowledge of homelessness law is exceptional.” Legal 500 2026
- Planning – “Riccardo is a fierce and confident barrister. He is able to effectively pick at any small threads in the other party’s case and expose the flaws in their case with great skill.” Legal 500 2026
- Social Housing – “Riccardo is unquestionably a high flyer. His deep knowledge comes from appearing in the cases that change and develop the law.” “Riccardo is a joy to work with.” “He is so knowledgeable in housing law, and his instructions are clear and concise, especially when there is a short deadline.” Chambers and Partners 2025
- Planning – “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 and Partners 2025
- Social Housing – “Riccardo’s knowledge on social housing law is exemplary, he can cite legislation and quote sections from the Housing Act with ease. He is a wonderful methodical advocate, and judges welcome his clear understanding of the law, which results in successful wins. It is a joy to work with Riccardo as he provides clear action points.” Legal 500 2025
- Social Housing – “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
- Social Housing – “Riccardo is a very good advocate. He is really efficient at what he does and he can handle difficult points of law.” “He is very proactive in cases.” Chambers and Partners 2023
- Social Housing – “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
- Social Housing -“A formidable advocate.” “He is extremely thorough, and his preparation comes over in the work that he produces and appearances before court.” Chambers and Partners 2022
- Social Housing – “He is very proactive, provides sound, thorough and timely advice, and fights the corner of the client but is always realistic.” Legal 500 2022
- Social Housing – “Riccardo is brilliant as an advocate. He is very user-friendly and incredibly professional and approachable.” Chambers and Partners 2021
- Social Housing – “Riccardo has boundless enthusiasm and a real capacity for hard work. He is 100% reliable and has a real understanding of social housing law.” Legal 500 2021
- Social Housing – “He has the drive, determination and extreme intellect to go far in social housing.” “He is very efficient, knowledgeable, personable and reliable.” Chambers and Partners 2020
- Social Housing – “He is very good technically, highly approachable and good with clients.” “Efficient and thorough, he’s able to absorb significant amounts of information swiftly and provide balanced advice with a view to the overall aim of the litigation.” Chambers and Partners 2019
Publications
Notable cases
Events