The court granted an interlocutory injunction to restrain unknown trespassers from entering land.
The Vice-Chancellor gave the following guidance : (1) First, that the description of the defendant should not involve a legal conclusion, such as is implicit in the use of the word ‘trespass’.
(2) Secondly, that it is undesirable to use a description such as ‘intending to trespass’, because that depends on the subjective intention of the individual which is not necessarily known to the outside world, and in particular the claimant, and is susceptible of change’.
Sir Andrew Morritt V-C
[2003] EWHC 1738 (Ch), [2003] 42 EG 126, [2004] Env LR 9
Bailii
England and Wales
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. . .
Cited – Vastint Leeds Bv v Persons Unknown ChD 24-Sep-2018
The claimant company sought a final injunction to prevent others occupying its land in Leeds. It was a quia timet injunction anticipating future acts of occupation by caravans, fly-tipping and use of the land for illegal raves.
Held: The . .
Cited – Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Litigation Practice
Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.381711
