The claimant wished to construct a new runway on its own land, and it was necessary to carry out works, namely, that trees on nearby land should be lopped or felled so that they would not constitute an obstruction to the flight path. The claimant had been granted a licence by the National Trust to enter and occupy this land for these purpose. The purpose for which the licence is granted is to enable the works agreed between the parties . . to be carried out. The Defendants objected to what was proposed and, without any licence from anyone, set up encampments on the land so as to make it difficult or impossible to lop and fell the trees. The Claimants started possession proceedings under RSC Order 113.
Held: A temporary stay was granted. A licensee, prevented by the acts of a squatter from exercising the rights of occupation, given by the licence, was entitled to apply for possession even though he himself might not be in occupation under the licence.
Chadwick LJ said: ‘possession is synonymous . . with exclusive occupation – that is to say occupation (or a right to occupy) to the exclusion of all others, including the owner or other person with superior title.’
Judges:
Chadwick, Laws LJJ
Citations:
Gazette 03-Mar-1999, Times 05-Mar-1999, Gazette 17-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 897, [2000] 1 QB 133
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton and others CA 18-Jan-1999
. .
See Also – Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton and others CA 23-Feb-1999
The claimant sought an order requiring delivery of possession of land occupied by the respondent objectors. They needed to remove trees from the land in order to construct a runway on their own adjacent land. The claimant had been granted a licence . .
Cited by:
Cited – Countryside Residential (North Thames) Ltd v Tugwell CA 4-Apr-2000
A company was granted a licence to enter on land, for surveys and technical investigations, with a view eventually to its purchase. The land was occupied by protesters, and the company sought an injunction to exclude them. It was held that the . .
Cited – Alamo Housing Co-operative Ltd v Meredith and others CA 4-Apr-2003
The local authority had let a row of houses to the claimant who then sublet the individual houses to the defendant tenants. The authority obtained possession under the head lease for redevelopment, but the tenants resisted giving possession, saying . .
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 – Clarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc CA 8-Dec-2009
The defendant tenants, anticipating that the landlord might delay or refuse consent to a subletting entered into a ‘virtual assignment’ of the lease, an assignment in everything but the deed and with no registration. The lease contained a standard . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145812