Manchester Ship Canal Developments Ld & Anor v Persons Unknown & Ors [2014] EWHC 645 (Ch) (10 March 2014)

Manchester Ship Canal Developments Ld & Anor v Persons Unknown & Ors [2014] EWHC 645 (Ch) (10 March 2014)

The claimants have proved title to the land and an immediate right to possession. The defendants' occupation constitutes trespass. ECHR Articles 10 and 11 do not provide a defence as the protest can be conducted elsewhere and the essence of the rights is not destroyed. Article 8 is not engaged on the facts as the defendants have not established sufficient and continuous links with the land to constitute it as their home, and in any event, there are no exceptional circumstances to outweigh the claimants' property rights. The claim is not disputed on substantial grounds and a possession order is appropriate.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 645 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Manchester Ship Canal Developments Limited; Claimant: Peel Investments Limited; Defendant: Persons Unknown; Defendant: Ian Crane; Defendant: Sean Peatfield; Defendant: Daniel Evans; Defendant: Martin Burke; Defendant: Tammy Samede; Defendant: George Thomas-Brown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Possession Claim (civil) / Substantive Hearing on Summary Basis
Outcome
Possession order granted
Legal Topics
Possession of Land, Trespass, ECHR Articles 8, 10, 11, Protest Rights, Summary Judgment, Balancing Property and Protest Rights
Property Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Possession of Land Trespass ECHR Articles 8, 10, 11 Protest Rights Summary Judgment +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manchester Ship Canal Developments Limited

Claimant

Peel Investments Limited

Claimant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Ian Crane

Defendant

Sean Peatfield

Defendant

Daniel Evans

Defendant

Martin Burke

Defendant

Tammy Samede

Defendant

George Thomas-Brown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession Claim (civil) / Substantive Hearing on Summary Basis

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have proved title to the land for which possession is sought
  2. 2 Whether claimants are entitled to possession over the sub-soil of a road with a public right of way
  3. 3 Whether defendants have a realistically arguable defence under ECHR Articles 8, 10, or 11

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants have proved title to the land and an immediate right to possession. The defendants' occupation constitutes trespass. ECHR Articles 10 and 11 do not provide a defence as the protest can be conducted elsewhere and the essence of the rights is not destroyed. Article 8 is not engaged on the facts as the defendants have not established sufficient and continuous links with the land to constitute it as their home, and in any event, there are no exceptional circumstances to outweigh the claimants' property rights. The claim is not disputed on substantial grounds and a possession order is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Possession order granted

Orders

  • Claimants entitled to possession of the land as delineated in the plans, subject to public footpath rights
  • Precise terms of the order to be settled after further submissions at hand-down