Manchester Ship Canal Developments Ld & Anor v Persons Unknown & Ors

Manchester Ship Canal Developments Ld & Anor v Persons Unknown & Ors

The claimants have proved title to the land and are entitled to possession. The defendants' occupation constitutes trespass and exceeds permissible highway use. The ECHR Articles 8, 10, and 11 do not provide a realistically arguable defence in these circumstances, as the protestors' rights are not destroyed by removal and the land does not constitute their home for Article 8 purposes.

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
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
possession order granted
Legal Topics
Possession of Land, Trespass, Public Rights of Way, European Convention on Human Rights, Summary Judgment, Protest Rights
Property Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Possession of Land Trespass Public Rights of Way European Convention on Human 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 3 Authorities cited 12 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

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants have proved title to the land and are entitled to possession. The defendants' occupation constitutes trespass and exceeds permissible highway use. The ECHR Articles 8, 10, and 11 do not provide a realistically arguable defence in these circumstances, as the protestors' rights are not destroyed by removal and the land does not constitute their home for Article 8 purposes.

Court Disposition

possession order granted

Orders

  • Possession order to be made in favour of the claimants over the land in question, subject to final terms to be settled at hand-down.
  • Order to be expressly qualified to preserve public right of way for passage on foot.