Loveridge v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Islington

Loveridge v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Islington

The order was set aside because the Deputy Master failed to put himself in a position to determine whether Islington’s claim was genuinely disputed on substantial grounds, due to not reading the defendants’ witness statements in circumstances where the advocate was unqualified and unable to properly present the defence.

Parties
Appellant (defendant in the Proceedings Below): Nelson Loveridge; Respondent (claimant in the Proceedings Below): The Major and Burgesses of the London Borough of Islington
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal (possession Proceedings Against Trespassers) / Appeal From Order of Deputy Master Linwood Dated 17 November 2020
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order set aside.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Procedural Fairness, Articles 8, 10, 11 ECHR, Summary Determination, Case Management Directions
Civil Procedure Human Rights Property Law Possession Proceedings Procedural Fairness Articles 8, 10, 11 ECHR Summary Determination Case Management Directions

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nelson Loveridge

Appellant (defendant in the Proceedings Below)

The Major and Burgesses of the London Borough of Islington

Respondent (claimant in the Proceedings Below)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (possession Proceedings Against Trespassers) / Appeal From Order of Deputy Master Linwood Dated 17 November 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Master failed to ensure procedural fairness by not reading defendants' witness statements
  2. 2 Whether the claim was genuinely disputed on grounds which appear to be substantial under CPR 55.8(2)
  3. 3 Whether the order should be set aside due to serious procedural irregularity

Ratio Decidendi

The order was set aside because the Deputy Master failed to put himself in a position to determine whether Islington’s claim was genuinely disputed on substantial grounds, due to not reading the defendants’ witness statements in circumstances where the advocate was unqualified and unable to properly present the defence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order set aside.

Orders

  • Order of Deputy Master Linwood dated 17 November 2020 set aside.
  • Directions made to ensure swift re-hearing of the possession claim.