Trespassers occupied part of the land owned by the claimant. They now appealed agaainst an injunction preventing them unlawfully occupying any part of the claimant’s land including areas not previously occupied.
Held: It was critical to determine just what land was to be protected by the proposed order. The action was in rem and would protect the land against all-comers. As such a high standard of proof was required. If there was convincing evidence of a real danger of other land being occupied, an order might be given, but such evidence was not available here.
Judges:
Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Mummery And Mr Justice Wilson
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 200, Times 15-Mar-2004, Gazette 25-Mar-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1906, [2004] 2 All ER 1056
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – University of Essex v Djemal and others CA 1980
Students occupied the administrative office part of university premises. Following an order for possession of that part, they moved to a part known as Level Six. The university then sought an order for possession of the whole of its premises. Just . .
Cited – Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food v Heyman and others 1989
The respondent travellers were in wrongful occupation of an area of woodland owned by the appellant. The appellant sought an order for possession not only to that land but also for an area of woodland in its ownership two or three miles away. The . .
Cited – Regina v Wandsworth County Court ex parte Wandsworth London Borough Council 1975
Where the court grants a writ of possession requiring the bailiff to put the claimant into possession of land, in principle, the bailiff will remove all those who are on the relevant land, irrespective of whether or not they were parties to the . .
Cited – Ellis v Loftus Iron Co 1874
The pasturing of cattle must be one of the most ordinary uses of land, and strict liability for damage done by cattle enclosed on one man’s land if they escape thence into the land of another, is one of the most ancient propositions of our law. It . .
Cited – White v Mellin HL 1895
Lord Watson said: ‘Damages and injunction are merely two different forms of remedy against the same wrong; and the facts which must be proved in order to entitle a plaintiff to the first of these remedies are equally necessary in the case of the . .
Cited – Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada v Ritchie Contracting and Supply Co Ltd HL 1919
If there has been no intrusion upon the land of the plaintiff at all then the only remedy may be a quia timet prohibitory injunction: ‘But no-one can obtain a quia timet order by merely saying ‘Timeo’; he must aver and prove that what is going on is . .
Cited – Morris v Redland Bricks Ltd HL 1969
The requirement of proof is greater for a party seeking a quia timet injunction than otherwise. Lord Upjohn said: ‘A mandatory injunction can only be granted where the plaintiff shows a very strong probability upon the facts that grave danger will . .
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs v Meier and Others SC 1-Dec-2009
The claimant sought a possession order to recover land from trespassers. The court considered whether a possession order was available where not all the land was occupied, and it was feared that the occupiers might simply move onto a different part. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Litigation Practice
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.193929
