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 legal 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. There was no procedural unfairness as the defendant was adequately represented and no application for an interpreter was made at the lower court. The judge's decisions were correct and there was no arguable ground for appeal.

Citation
[2012] EWHC B23
Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Lambeth; Defendant: Mr Chonorowicz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Possession Proceedings / Application for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal Against Possession Order
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Possession of Property, Trespassers, Article 8 ECHR, Notice Requirements, Land Registry Evidence, Legal Aid, Interpreter Assistance
Property Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Possession of Property Trespassers Article 8 ECHR Notice Requirements Land Registry Evidence +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Lambeth

Claimant

Mr Chonorowicz

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant had legal title to 31 Cresset Street at the time of 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 legal 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. There was no procedural unfairness as the defendant was adequately represented and no application for an interpreter was made at the lower court. The judge's decisions were correct and there was no arguable ground for appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused