London Borough of Lambeth v Grant & Ors (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 1962 (QB) (12 July 2021)

London Borough of Lambeth v Grant & Ors (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 1962 (QB) (12 July 2021)

The Council is entitled to possession because the Defendants are trespassers in breach of byelaws, and although their occupation engages Articles 10 and 11 ECHR, the interference with their rights is limited and justified by the need to protect the rights of the public to use the Common, uphold the byelaws, and prevent undermining of lawful regulation of public space. The balancing exercise under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR favours granting possession.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1962
Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Lambeth; First Defendant: Caul Grant; Second Defendant: Kaylee; Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Possession Claim Against Trespassers (public Land) / High Court Judgment on Application for Immediate Possession Order
Outcome
Possession order granted to the Council against all Defendants.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Trespass, Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr), Freedom of Assembly (article 11 Echr), Proportionality Balancing, Byelaws Enforcement, Human Rights Act 1998
Civil Procedure Human Rights Property Law Possession Proceedings Trespass Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr) Freedom of Assembly (article 11 Echr) Proportionality Balancing +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Lambeth

Claimant

Caul Grant

First Defendant

Kaylee

Second Defendant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession Claim Against Trespassers (public Land) / High Court Judgment on Application for Immediate Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council is entitled to immediate possession of Clapham Common against the Defendants as trespassers
  2. 2 Whether the occupation is protected by Articles 10 and 11 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether a possession order would be a proportionate interference with the Defendants' Convention rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Council is entitled to possession because the Defendants are trespassers in breach of byelaws, and although their occupation engages Articles 10 and 11 ECHR, the interference with their rights is limited and justified by the need to protect the rights of the public to use the Common, uphold the byelaws, and prevent undermining of lawful regulation of public space. The balancing exercise under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR favours granting possession.

Court Disposition

Possession order granted to the Council against all Defendants.

Orders

  • Directions given by Master McCloud on 29 June revoked.
  • Immediate order for possession of the relevant part of Clapham Common in favour of the Council.