Possession – Trespassers – Housing development – Environmental protesters camping on claimants’ land to prevent development – Claimant bringing possession proceedings in High Court under CPR 55 – Whether county court appropriate forum – Whether exceptional circumstances justifying High Court action – Para 1.3 of practice direction to CPR 55.3 – Defendants’ appeal dismissed
The claimants owned farmland that the local planning authority had identified for housing and was the subject of an application for outline planning permission for a development of 875 homes. The proposed development attracted protests on environmental grounds. A group of protesters set up camp on the land and erected treehouses; they refused requests to leave and indicated their intention to stay for a long time.
The claimants brought a claim for possession against the defendants, proceeding by way of a claim in the High Court under CPR 55. The defendants opposed the claim on the ground that it should have been brought in the county court. That issue turned on an application of the practice direction under CPR 55.3, which provided that possession claims should normally be brought in the county court save in exceptional circumstances. By para 1.3, these included cases where the claim was against trespassers and there was a “substantial risk of public disturbance or of serious harm to persons or property which properly require immediate determination”.
The master found that the trespassers had made clear their intention to stay as long as necessary to disrupt the development plans and that their presence was causing serious financial loss to the claimants owing to delays to the development, damage to their property and the disruption of their farming activities. He considered that eviction through the county court process would take longer and that the bailiffs employed by the county courts would not have the necessary resources or experience to deal with an eviction of that scale, which involved well prepared protesters who would resist all attempts to remove them. He considered that the High Court enforcement officers had the necessary experience to carry out the eviction operation, which could otherwise carry a serious risk of injury to trespassers, enforcement officers or members of the public. He concluded that the requirements of para 1.3 had been met and that the case was an appropriate one for determination in the High Court.
The defendants appealed. They contended, inter alia, that the master had erred in taking into account circumstances surrounding the possible enforcement action when determining whether there was a substantial risk of public disturbance or harm.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Where proceedings were brought in the High Court, that court would proceed on the basis of the certificate filed by the claimant, as required by CPR 55.3(2), setting out the reasons why the claim had been brought in that court. The decision as to whether the matter should proceed in another court would generally be made by the High Court on its own initiative in cases where it was obvious that the action had been brought in the wrong court. In seriously contested cases, the High Court would normally proceed on the assumption that it was the correct court.
A discretion was given to the High Court in deciding whether there were exceptional circumstances, and its decision would not lightly be interfered with on appeal. In the instant case, the master had been entitled to find a substantial risk of public disturbance or of serious harm to property or persons. He had been entitled to take account of matters that would occur only upon enforcement. Where trespassers were present, there was always a likelihood of a possession order that would need to be enforced. Exceptional circumstances would exist, and the High Court should have jurisdiction, where protesters would passively resist any attempt to remove them; however peaceful some of them might be, experience of similar evictions showed that the risk of injury to the persons involved was substantial. The High Court would be the appropriate court where the claim was against trespassers and properly required immediate determination within para 1.3 of the practice direction. That latter requirement would be fulfilled in cases where the trespassers were present on someone else’s land and there was no question of determination of a right to that land. Cases such as the instant case were precisely the type in which exceptional circumstances existed and the High Court should accept jurisdiction.
Hugo Charlton (instructed by Forresters) appeared for the claimants; Christopher Wilson (instructed by Shergroup Solicitors, of Braintree) appeared for the defendants.
Sally Dobson, barrister
