Pritchard & Ors v Teitelbaum & Ors [2011] EWHC 1063 (Ch) (20 April 2011)

Pritchard & Ors v Teitelbaum & Ors [2011] EWHC 1063 (Ch) (20 April 2011)

The writ of possession was validly issued under RSC Order 113 r 7, no notice of eviction was required, claimants had only slight prospects of success in setting aside the possession order, and restoration to possession was not justified. Applications against third and fourth defendants were totally without merit and costs awarded against claimants.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1063 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mrs J V Pritchard; Claimant: Robert Carter; Claimant: John Hastings Carew-Reid; Defendant: Nathan Teitelbaum; Defendant: Dennis Matthews Solicitors; Defendant: Ingram Winter Green Solicitors; Defendant: Bude Nathan Iwanier Solicitors; Defendant: Fineland Investments Ltd; Defendant: Fineland Properties Ltd; Defendant: Northern Holdings
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Possession Claim and Related Applications / Post Eviction Application for Re Entry and Access to Premises
Outcome
Application for re-entry and restoration to possession dismissed; claimants permitted supervised access to remove possessions; applications against third and fourth defendants dismissed as totally without merit; costs awarded against claimants.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Eviction, Right to Buy, Trespass, Costs, Stay of Execution
Property Law Civil Procedure Possession Proceedings Eviction Right to Buy Trespass Costs Stay of Execution

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs J V Pritchard

Claimant

Robert Carter

Claimant

John Hastings Carew-Reid

Claimant

Nathan Teitelbaum

Defendant

Dennis Matthews Solicitors

Defendant

Ingram Winter Green Solicitors

Defendant

Bude Nathan Iwanier Solicitors

Defendant

Fineland Investments Ltd

Defendant

Fineland Properties Ltd

Defendant

Northern Holdings

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession Claim and Related Applications / Post Eviction Application for Re Entry and Access to Premises

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for possession should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the writ of possession was validly issued
  3. 3 Whether notice of eviction was required

Ratio Decidendi

The writ of possession was validly issued under RSC Order 113 r 7, no notice of eviction was required, claimants had only slight prospects of success in setting aside the possession order, and restoration to possession was not justified. Applications against third and fourth defendants were totally without merit and costs awarded against claimants.

Court Disposition

Application for re-entry and restoration to possession dismissed; claimants permitted supervised access to remove possessions; applications against third and fourth defendants dismissed as totally without merit; costs awarded against claimants.

Orders

  • Claimants denied re-entry or restoration to possession
  • Claimants permitted supervised access to remove possessions