Moat Housing Group- South Ltd. v Harris & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 287 (16 March 2005)

Moat Housing Group- South Ltd. v Harris & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 287 (16 March 2005)

The district judge erred in granting 'without notice' ouster and exclusion orders against the appellants; such intrusive orders require exceptional circumstances and proportionality, which were not established by the evidence. Only non-molestation-type orders and parental control directions were justified without notice. The power of arrest attachment was not sufficiently supported by evidence of violence or risk of harm to warrant its inclusion.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 287
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Moat Housing Group – South Limited; Defendant/appellant: Carl Harris; Defendant/appellant: Susan Colette Hartless
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Appeals From County Court Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; declaration made that ouster and exclusion orders should not have been granted without notice; order discharged.
Legal Topics
Anti Social Behaviour Injunctions, Ouster Orders, Exclusion Orders, Power of Arrest, Possession Proceedings, Without Notice Applications, Tenancy Agreements, Eviction, Proportionality, Due Process
Housing Law Civil Procedure Family Law Anti Social Behaviour Injunctions Ouster Orders Exclusion Orders Power of Arrest Possession Proceedings +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moat Housing Group – South Limited

Claimant/respondent

Carl Harris

Defendant/appellant

Susan Colette Hartless

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Appeals From County Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'without notice' ouster and exclusion orders were lawfully and proportionately made
  2. 2 Whether a power of arrest should have been attached to the injunction
  3. 3 Whether the extent and duration of the injunction were appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The district judge erred in granting 'without notice' ouster and exclusion orders against the appellants; such intrusive orders require exceptional circumstances and proportionality, which were not established by the evidence. Only non-molestation-type orders and parental control directions were justified without notice. The power of arrest attachment was not sufficiently supported by evidence of violence or risk of harm to warrant its inclusion.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; declaration made that ouster and exclusion orders should not have been granted without notice; order discharged.

Orders

  • Declaration that 'without notice' ouster and exclusion orders were unlawful and disproportionate.
  • Non-molestation-type injunctions and parental control directions permitted.