London Borough of Hounslow v Devere & Ors [2018] EWHC 809 (Ch) (22 January 2018)

London Borough of Hounslow v Devere & Ors [2018] EWHC 809 (Ch) (22 January 2018)

Permission to appeal is granted on grounds relating to the scope of the removal order, the claimant's standing as licensee to sue in trespass, the reliance on the Port of London Authority letter, the entitlement to mesne profits, and the existence and effect of public rights of way and bye-laws, as these grounds have a real prospect of success. Permission is refused on grounds relating to Article 8, the costs order, and the cabling issue, as these do not have a real prospect of success or are not supported by evidence.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 809 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow; First Defendant: David Frank Devere; Fourth Defendant: Ben Piper; Fifth Defendant: Vernon Roberts; Thirteenth Defendant: Roger McGonagle; Fifteenth Defendant: Paul Mendoza; Nineteenth Defendant: Steven Javor; Twenty Fourth Defendant: Peter McCrudden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted in part; refused in part.
Legal Topics
Trespass, Injunctions, Licences, Mesne Profits, Costs, Human Rights, Public Rights of Way
Property Law Civil Procedure Trespass Injunctions Licences Mesne Profits Costs Human Rights +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow

Claimant

David Frank Devere

First Defendant

Ben Piper

Fourth Defendant

Vernon Roberts

Fifth Defendant

Roger McGonagle

Thirteenth Defendant

Paul Mendoza

Fifteenth Defendant

Steven Javor

Nineteenth Defendant

Peter McCrudden

Twenty Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order permitting the claimant to remove vessels and associated items went beyond lawful self-help and improperly circumvented contempt jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the claimant, as licensee, had standing to bring an action in trespass under the terms of the River Works licence
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in admitting and relying on a letter from the Port of London Authority regarding exclusivity

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted on grounds relating to the scope of the removal order, the claimant's standing as licensee to sue in trespass, the reliance on the Port of London Authority letter, the entitlement to mesne profits, and the existence and effect of public rights of way and bye-laws, as these grounds have a real prospect of success. Permission is refused on grounds relating to Article 8, the costs order, and the cabling issue, as these do not have a real prospect of success or are not supported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part; refused in part.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
  • Permission to appeal refused on Grounds 6, 7, and 8.