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 occupiers are trespassers in breach of valid byelaws, the protest lacks site-specific significance, has lasted a sufficient period, and the balancing exercise under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR shows the interference with protest rights is limited and justified by pressing social need to protect public rights and enforce byelaws.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1962 (QB)
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 (non Residential Property) / Final Determination After Expedited Hearing
Outcome
Possession order granted in favour of the Council
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Trespass, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Proportionality Under ECHR, Public Authority Byelaws
Civil Procedure Human Rights Property Law Possession Proceedings Trespass Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Proportionality Under 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 6 Authorities cited 9 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 (non Residential Property) / Final Determination After Expedited Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council is entitled to possession of Clapham Common against occupiers claiming protest rights
  2. 2 Whether Articles 10 and 11 ECHR protect the occupiers' camp
  3. 3 Whether a possession order would be a disproportionate interference with Convention rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Council is entitled to possession because the occupiers are trespassers in breach of valid byelaws, the protest lacks site-specific significance, has lasted a sufficient period, and the balancing exercise under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR shows the interference with protest rights is limited and justified by pressing social need to protect public rights and enforce byelaws.

Court Disposition

Possession order granted in favour of the Council

Orders

  • Directions given by Master McCloud revoked
  • Full possession order granted forthwith