The defendant travellers occupied land belonging to the claimants. A possession order had been obtained, and the defendants now sought a reasonable time to be allowed to leave.
Held: The law had not changed, and section 89 could not be used to argue for a suspension of the order for possession.
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 1860, [2007] HLR 24
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Still Good Law – McPhail v Persons, Names Unknown CA 1973
The court was asked to make an order against persons unknown in order to recover land. Although an owner of land which was being occupied by squatters was entitled to take the remedy into his own hand, he was encouraged to go to a common law court . .
Cited – Bibby and others v Sumintra Partap and others PC 20-May-1996
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago had the power to suspend a possession order against a trespasser pending the outcome of an appeal. . .
Cited – Swordheath Properties Ltd v Floyd 1978
The rules relatng to the grant of immediate possession to a landowner as against squatters applied in the County Court just as much as in the High Court. The amount of damages payable by a trespasser on land is ordinarily the letting value of the . .
Cited – D and F Estates v Church Commissioners for England CA 1988
The main contractor on the site subcontracted the interior plastering. Fifteen years later, the plasterwork collapsed causing injury. The plasterer had not used the plaster specified.
Held: Appeal allowed. A contractor may have contractual or . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – Hackney v Side By Side (Kids) Ltd QBD 14-Jul-2003
The defendant sought a stay of a warrant for possession. It had submitted to an order for possession by consent in return for a promise of alternative accomodation. They sought a stay under section 89, saying that the claimant had not complied with . .
Cited – Bain and Co v Church Commissioners for England ChD 1989
Section 89 does not apply to an order for possession made by the High Court, and an application for an adjournment of a possession order must be refused. The word ‘Court’ must be construed to refer to the County Court only: ‘possession of a dwelling . .
Cited by:
Cited – Admiral Taverns (Cygnet Ltd) v Daly and Another CA 25-Nov-2008
The landlord appealed against a stay made on its suspended possession order by the High Court, saying that only the county court had such jurisdiction.
Held: ‘court’ in the section must mean any court. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Human Rights
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266550
