London Borough of Hounslow v Devere & Ors

London Borough of Hounslow v Devere & Ors

Hounslow was in possession of the Claimant’s land and the walkway (including supporting posts) and could sue in trespass for interference with those areas. Hounslow was not in possession of other posts, piles, and dolphins sunk into the river bed and could not claim trespass or damages for mooring to those items. The Appellants’ use of the park to access their vessels was not trespass, as the public may use the park as a means of access. Injunctions and damages were appropriate only to the extent of actual trespass found.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow; Defendant/appellant: David Frank DeVere; Defendant/appellant: Vernon Carroll Roberts; Defendant/appellant: Roger McGonagle; Defendant/appellant: Paul Mendoza; Defendant/appellant: Stephen Alexander Javor; Defendant/appellant: Peter McCrudden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Trespass, Possession, Licences, Fixtures and Chattels, Riparian Rights, Damages, Injunctions
Property Law Land Law Tort Law Trespass Possession Licences Fixtures and Chattels Riparian Rights +2 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow

Claimant/respondent

David Frank DeVere

Defendant/appellant

Vernon Carroll Roberts

Defendant/appellant

Roger McGonagle

Defendant/appellant

Paul Mendoza

Defendant/appellant

Stephen Alexander Javor

Defendant/appellant

Peter McCrudden

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hounslow had sufficient possession or rights over the River Works to sue in trespass
  2. 2 Whether the mooring of vessels and associated activities constituted trespass
  3. 3 Whether damages and injunctions were properly awarded

Ratio Decidendi

Hounslow was in possession of the Claimant’s land and the walkway (including supporting posts) and could sue in trespass for interference with those areas. Hounslow was not in possession of other posts, piles, and dolphins sunk into the river bed and could not claim trespass or damages for mooring to those items. The Appellants’ use of the park to access their vessels was not trespass, as the public may use the park as a means of access. Injunctions and damages were appropriate only to the extent of actual trespass found.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Declaration permitting Hounslow to remove vessels/items without liability set aside
  • Damages and injunctions limited to trespass on land, walkway, and supporting posts