Djurberg v Thames Properties (Hampton) Ltd & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 549 (21 May 2024)

Djurberg v Thames Properties (Hampton) Ltd & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 549 (21 May 2024)

The High Court erred in striking out the claim summarily because, if the appellant can establish a contractual lien for unpaid mooring fees and actual possession, he may have title to sue in conversion or trespass to goods. Procedural safeguards for litigants in person were not observed, and the claim should not have been dismissed without proper application and notice.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 549
Parties
Appellant: Myck Djurberg; First Respondent: Thames Properties (Hampton) Limited; Second Respondent: Rodriguez Doll; Third Respondent: Gregory Collier
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Decision Striking Out Claim and Refusing Interim Injunction
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Conversion, Lien, Interference With Goods, Summary Judgment, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Property Law Tort Law Conversion Lien Interference With Goods Summary Judgment Procedural Fairness

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Myck Djurberg

Appellant

Thames Properties (Hampton) Limited

First Respondent

Rodriguez Doll

Second Respondent

Gregory Collier

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Decision Striking Out Claim and Refusing Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had a sufficient possessory right (lien) to sustain a claim for conversion/trespass to goods against the respondents for removal of a houseboat.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct to strike out the claim summarily and refuse an interim injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in striking out the claim summarily because, if the appellant can establish a contractual lien for unpaid mooring fees and actual possession, he may have title to sue in conversion or trespass to goods. Procedural safeguards for litigants in person were not observed, and the claim should not have been dismissed without proper application and notice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Strike-out of claim set aside
  • Appellant permitted to amend Particulars of Claim