Pritchard & Ors v Teitelbaum & Ors

Pritchard & Ors v Teitelbaum & Ors

The writ of possession was validly issued and executed; there was no procedural defect or requirement to give notice of eviction; the claimants' prospects of setting aside the possession order were slight; and the applications against the solicitor defendants were totally without merit, justifying a costs order against the claimants.

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
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Re Entry And/or Access Following Eviction and Possession Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Eviction, Setting Aside Judgment, Writ of Possession, Costs
Property Law Civil Procedure Possession Proceedings Eviction Setting Aside Judgment Writ of Possession Costs

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 15 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

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Re Entry And/or Access Following Eviction and Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for possession should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the writ of possession was validly issued and executed
  3. 3 Whether the claimants should be restored to possession or allowed access to remove possessions

Ratio Decidendi

The writ of possession was validly issued and executed; there was no procedural defect or requirement to give notice of eviction; the claimants' prospects of setting aside the possession order were slight; and the applications against the solicitor defendants were totally without merit, justifying a costs order against the claimants.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants not restored to possession of premises
  • Claimants permitted supervised access to remove possessions