Mohammed Sheraz Akhtar & Ors v Mohammed Ali Khan & Ors

Mohammed Sheraz Akhtar & Ors v Mohammed Ali Khan & Ors

Neither the claimants nor the defendants established prescriptive easements as their respective uses were by right under subsisting leases or rendered contentious by protest. The claimants failed to prove trespass, nuisance, assault, battery, or harassment. The only relief granted was a mandatory injunction for removal of the Blue Container and an injunction restraining trespass for four years. Cross-injunctions were also issued prohibiting direct communication between parties except through solicitors.

Parties
Claimant: Mohammed Sheraz Akhtar; Claimant: Mohammed Eyarz Akhtar; Claimant: Mohammed Surfraz; Claimant: Amina Bibi; Defendant: Mohammed Ali Khan; Defendant: Zia Khan; Defendant: Bilal Khan; Defendant: Sajid Khan; Defendant: Majid Khan; Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claims and counterclaims for prescriptive easements dismissed; damages claims dismissed; limited injunctive relief granted.
Legal Topics
Prescriptive Easements, Trespass, Nuisance, Assault, Battery, Harassment, Land Registration, Injunctions
Property Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Prescriptive Easements Trespass Nuisance Assault Battery +3 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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Sheraz Akhtar

Claimant

Mohammed Eyarz Akhtar

Claimant

Mohammed Surfraz

Claimant

Amina Bibi

Claimant

Mohammed Ali Khan

Defendant

Zia Khan

Defendant

Bilal Khan

Defendant

Sajid Khan

Defendant

Majid Khan

Defendant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants or defendants acquired prescriptive easements over the disputed land
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are entitled to damages or injunctive relief for alleged trespass, nuisance, assault, battery, or harassment
  3. 3 Whether the Land Registry should be rectified regarding the Vinmalpo Lease

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the claimants nor the defendants established prescriptive easements as their respective uses were by right under subsisting leases or rendered contentious by protest. The claimants failed to prove trespass, nuisance, assault, battery, or harassment. The only relief granted was a mandatory injunction for removal of the Blue Container and an injunction restraining trespass for four years. Cross-injunctions were also issued prohibiting direct communication between parties except through solicitors.

Court Disposition

Claims and counterclaims for prescriptive easements dismissed; damages claims dismissed; limited injunctive relief granted.

Orders

  • Mandatory injunction requiring defendants to remove the Blue Container from the Property.
  • Injunction for four years restraining defendants from trespassing onto the Property.