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 appellant argued that there was a danger that, upon eviction, the respondents would decamp to the other part. The appellant successfully appealed against the refusal of the district judge to include the second area in the order for possession.
Held: the propinquity between the two areas of woodland and the fact that each was ideal for use by the respondents, being close to a public road and providing easy access for large vehicles, represented convincing evidence of real danger of their decampment. ‘Given that the court’s powers are not limited to the particular area adversely occupied, the question remains as to what is required to justify an order for possession extending to other areas as well. To my mind neither the fact that the land is rural rather than urban, nor the fact that there are parcels of land which are geographically separated from each other, necessarily determines the matter one way or the other. In my judgment what is needed (apart of course from the other requirements of Order 113) is convincing evidence (not merely belief) to establish that there is a real danger of actual violation of all the areas in question by those actually trespassing on at least one of the areas when the proceedings are instituted.’
Judges:
Saville J
Citations:
[1989] 59 P and CR 48, (1990) 59 P and CR 48
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 by:
Cited – Drury v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 26-Feb-2004
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 . .
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.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194589
