London Borough of Lambeth v Chonorowicz [2012] EWHC B23 (QB) (29 February 2012)

London Borough of Lambeth v Chonorowicz [2012] EWHC B23 (QB) (29 February 2012)

The claimant established title to the property at all relevant times through corrected Land Registry evidence. No notice was required as the defendant was a trespasser. Article 8 ECHR did not provide a defence to possession in these circumstances. The proceedings were fair and there was no arguable ground for appeal.

Citation
[2012] EWHC B23 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Lambeth; Defendant: Mr Chonorowicz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Possession Proceedings / Application for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal Against Possession Order
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Possession of Land, Trespassers, Article 8 ECHR, Notice Requirements, Appeal Procedure
Property Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Possession of Land Trespassers Article 8 ECHR Notice Requirements Appeal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Lambeth

Claimant

Mr Chonorowicz

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession Proceedings / Application for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal Against Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant had title to 31 Cresset Street at the time of issuing proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the possession order violated Article 8 rights of the defendant and his family
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was denied due to lack of legal aid or interpreter

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant established title to the property at all relevant times through corrected Land Registry evidence. No notice was required as the defendant was a trespasser. Article 8 ECHR did not provide a defence to possession in these circumstances. The proceedings were fair and there was no arguable ground for appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused