London Borough of Hackney & Anor v Powlesland & Ors

London Borough of Hackney & Anor v Powlesland & Ors

The claimants are entitled to possession of all the relevant land as the protest camp constitutes a substantial and semi-permanent dispossession, interfering with both public and private rights. The Article 10 and 11 rights of the defendants do not outweigh the claimants' rights, and the interference is proportionate. The proceedings are not stayed by Practice Direction 51Z as they are claims against trespassers including persons unknown. Interim injunctive relief is justified against persons unknown due to the strong probability of further unlawful acts and inadequacy of damages.

Parties
Claimant: The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hackney; Claimant: Berkeley Homes (North East London) Limited; Defendant: Paul Powlesland; Defendant: Peter Buckingham; Defendant: Lesley Benson; Defendant: Elaine Gosnell; Defendant: Lydia Gosnell; Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Possession and Injunction / Interim Application and Judgment
Outcome
Order for possession granted; interim injunctive relief granted against persons unknown; no injunctive relief against third, fourth, and fifth defendants; claims against third, fourth, and fifth defendants to be brought to an end.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Injunctive Relief, Trespass, Protest Law, Article 10 ECHR, Article 11 ECHR
Property Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Possession Proceedings Injunctive Relief Trespass Protest Law Article 10 ECHR +1 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hackney

Claimant

Berkeley Homes (North East London) Limited

Claimant

Paul Powlesland

Defendant

Peter Buckingham

Defendant

Lesley Benson

Defendant

Elaine Gosnell

Defendant

Lydia Gosnell

Defendant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession and Injunction / Interim Application and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to possession of the land including highway, green and turquoise land against named and unknown defendants
  2. 2 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted against persons unknown to restrain protest and obstruction of works
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' Article 10 and 11 rights outweigh the claimants' property and development rights

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants are entitled to possession of all the relevant land as the protest camp constitutes a substantial and semi-permanent dispossession, interfering with both public and private rights. The Article 10 and 11 rights of the defendants do not outweigh the claimants' rights, and the interference is proportionate. The proceedings are not stayed by Practice Direction 51Z as they are claims against trespassers including persons unknown. Interim injunctive relief is justified against persons unknown due to the strong probability of further unlawful acts and inadequacy of damages.

Court Disposition

Order for possession granted; interim injunctive relief granted against persons unknown; no injunctive relief against third, fourth, and fifth defendants; claims against third, fourth, and fifth defendants to be brought to an end.

Orders

  • Order for possession of the yellow, green, and turquoise land within the red line on the plan.
  • Interim injunction against persons unknown in revised terms restraining entry, occupation, obstruction, or encouragement thereof regarding the land and the felling of the Happy Man Tree.