‘There are increasing numbers of injunctions against incursions onto private and public land by “persons unknown”.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 7th November 2018
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Those who act for private sector landlords in residential possession proceedings will be familiar with the decision of the Supreme Court in McDonald v McDonald [2017] AC 273, which was argued successfully by Stephen Jourdan QC and Ciara Fairly of Falcon Chambers. In McDonald, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tenant in summary possession proceedings could require the court to consider the proportionality of making a possession order, having regards to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): the well-known right to respect for private and family life. In particular, the court was required to decide whether a private landlord’s mandatory right to possession of her property under section 21 of the Housing Act 1998 could be curtailed or defeated entirely by invoking Article 8.’
Falcon Chambers, May 2018
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘The Court of Appeal has provided some useful (and dare I venture to say, some not so useful) guidance on damages for unlawful eviction.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 11th June 2018
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has held that, in unlawful eviction cases, damages for trespass must compensate the tenant not merely for the letting value of the property of which he has been deprived but also for the anxiety, inconvenience and mental stress involved in the loss of what was the tenant’s home. The practice of cross-checking the amount of damages against the contractual rent used in disrepair cases (Wallace v Manchester CC [1998] 30 H.L.R. 1111, CA) does not apply to such claims.’
Arden Chambers, 18th May 2018
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘Injunctions give sport clubs a useful tool to prevent access to grounds by ‘urban free climbers’ and other trespassers.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th January 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Owners of some of the UK’s best known landmarks are pursuing legal action to fight back against YouTube daredevils who climb their iconic buildings.’
Daily Telegraph, 15th January 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The doctrine of adverse possession arises from the Limitation Act 1980. Section 15(1) provides that no action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued. Sections 1-7 provide that at the expiration of the period of 12 years the title of the paper owner is extinguished. The claim of a person to a possessory title was therefore based on the negative effect of the extinguishment of the paper owner’s title, and the basic principle that what is required for a case in trespass is not ownership, but possession or a right to possession.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 9th November 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The doctrine of adverse possession arises from the Limitation Act 1980. Section 15(1) provides that no action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued. Sections 1-7 provide that at the expiration of the period of 12 years the title of the paper owner is extinguished. The claim of a person to a possessory title was therefore based on the negative effect of the extinguishment of the paper owner’s title, and the basic principle that what is required for a case in trespass is not ownership, but possession or a right to possession.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 9th November 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Claimants were the tenants of a property owned by the Defendant by way of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement dated 18th September 2012. A deposit was paid in the sum of £500 but not protected by the Defendant.’
Nearly Legal, 31st October 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In Sheffield City Council v Fairhall [2017] EWHC 2121 (QB), the Court has been asked to consider the extent to which the decision in DPP v Jones [1999] UKHL 5; [1999] 2 AC 240 can be relied upon as a right to conduct peaceful but disruptive protest on the highway.’
UK Police Law Blog, 30th September 2017
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘A wealthy solicitor is embroiled in a bitter legal dispute with his neighbour over a lime tree he claims is damaging his £1.3 million home and smearing unsightly sap over his windows.’
Daily Telegraph, 3rd December 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘While the Magistrates Courts continue to hand out paltry fines to landlords on conviction for illegal eviction, despite the removal of the upper £5000 limit, it is good to see that the civil courts are capable of taking a more reasonable approach to quantum.’
Nearly Legal, 13th August 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A retired businessman has lost his battle with a local archaeological society after complaining about “plebeian” members of historical tour groups spoiling his elevenses.’
Daily Telegraph, 31st July 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A former fashion executive will face no further action after a neighbour who allegedly trespassed at his home was fatally wounded last year.’
The Guardian, 29th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘In recent years there have been many high-profile protests on public property; St Paul’s Cathedral and the Parliament Square protests are two of the best known. These resulted in the cases of City of London v Samede and others [2012] EWCA Civ 160 and Hall and others v Mayor of London [2010] EWCA Civ 817. There are also numerous instances of protesters occupying privately-owned commercial land, claiming the protection of human rights defences to stay in possession. Ultimately, the law is against the trespassers but, without swift action, delay can cost the landowner significant sums. These costs are commonly due to the extra security required to prevent further trespassers from entering; the halt to construction or refurbishment works; and the disruption to a working building. It is not uncommon for landowners to incur costs of several hundred thousand pounds while enforcing possession orders against trespassers. Owners would be well advised to plan for such an incursion if there is a risk that their property could be a target.’
Tanfield Chambers, 19th April 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The defendant was charged with trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence contrary to section 63(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The prosecution case was that the defendant had entered a family’s home as a trespasser, and had been naked and touching his penis in the presence of family members: further, that while being ejected from the house by the father of the family, he had made an unseemly sexual suggestion. In interview with the police the defendant had denied ever having entered the house. On closure of the prosecution case the defendant submitted that there was no case to answer because the prosecution had not particularised the sexual offence which it was asserted that he had intended to commit. The prosecution submitted that it was sufficient that their case was that the intent relied on was to commit one or more of the offences set out in sections 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The trial judge rejected the submission of no case to answer and the defendant was convicted. The defendant appealed against conviction on the ground, among others, that the prosecution had been obliged to specify the sexual offence which it was asserted that the defendant had intended to commit.’
WLR Daily, 13th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Six women and seven men have avoided jail for trespassing at Heathrow, following a protest against the possible expansion of the airport.’
The Guardian, 24th February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘In what has turned into a continuing series, there are further updates on enforcement of possession orders via the High Court, obtaining writs and the scandalous conduct of many High Court Enforcement Officers.’
Nearly Legal, 13th February 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Jailing the 13 activists who last year chained themselves on Heathrow’s northern runway in protest at the airport’s expansion would represent a “massive threat” to the right to peaceful protest in the UK, according to John McDonnell and Caroline Lucas.’
The Guardian, 12th February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A judge has been urged not to act on her threat to jail 13 peaceful environmental protesters – as campaigners warn that the British legal system’s long-standing tolerance towards non-violent direct action is under threat.’
The Independent, 2nd February 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2019