Moat Housing Group- South Ltd. v Harris & Anor

Moat Housing Group- South Ltd. v Harris & Anor

The district judge erred in granting without notice ouster and exclusion orders, which were neither necessary nor proportionate; a power of arrest could only be attached to parts of the injunction protecting against violence. The possession order was reasonable given the seriousness of the conduct, but should have been suspended due to procedural failings and the changed circumstances. The ASBOs were excessive and inappropriate; undertakings or ASBIs were more suitable.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Orders (injunction, Possession, Asbos) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; orders varied.
Legal Topics
Anti Social Behaviour Injunctions (asbi), Possession Proceedings, Without Notice Orders, Powers of Arrest, Suspension of Possession Orders, Asbos (anti Social Behaviour Orders), Hearsay Evidence, Proportionality, Procedural Fairness
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Anti Social Behaviour Injunctions (asbi) Possession Proceedings Without Notice Orders Powers of Arrest +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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moat Housing Group – South Limited

Claimant/respondent

Carl Harris

Defendant/appellant

Susan Colette Hartless

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Orders (injunction, Possession, Asbos) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the district judge erred in granting without notice ouster and exclusion orders against the appellants
  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 excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The district judge erred in granting without notice ouster and exclusion orders, which were neither necessary nor proportionate; a power of arrest could only be attached to parts of the injunction protecting against violence. The possession order was reasonable given the seriousness of the conduct, but should have been suspended due to procedural failings and the changed circumstances. The ASBOs were excessive and inappropriate; undertakings or ASBIs were more suitable.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; orders varied.

Orders

  • Declaration that ouster and exclusion orders should not have been made without notice; power of arrest limited to violence-related provisions.
  • Possession order to be suspended on terms of no further nuisance or annoyance.