Jones & Anor v Persons Unknown & Anor
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE HODGE QC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The claimants filed a possession claim against anti-fracking protesters occupying their land without consent. The court held that the claimants were rightful owners, proper service was effected, and human rights claims did not outweigh the claimants' rights. The court ordered possession to be given to the claimants with costs incurred by the claimants.
JUDGMENT
JUDGE HODGE QC: This is my extemporary judgment on the hearing of a claim for possession by Mr Terence Neal Jones and his son, Mr Terence Andrew Jones, against Persons Unknown. The claim number is A30MA971. On 12 th November 2014, which was the Tuesday of last week, the claimants issued a claim form for possession of property at Borras Head, Borras, Wrexham LL13 9TL as shown edged red on a plan attached to the particulars of claim. What the claimants say is that they are the owners of the land. Part is registered under title numbers WA609866 and CYM262408 whilst the remainder is unregistered land. The unregistered title stems from an assent in favour of Mr Neal Jones, the first claimant, dated 13 th September 1988. Mr Neal Jones gifted the land on 31 st March 1989 to himself and his son, Andrew, as tenants in common, as to four fifth parts for Neal and as to the remaining 1/5 th part for Andrew. I am satisfied on the evidence that the claimants are, indeed, the freehold owners of the land which is the subject of this possession claim.
On 17 th October 2014 various persons began occupying part of the claimants’ land (it is said) without the claimants’ consent or licence in connection with what is described as an “anti-fracking protest”. The persons in occupation would prefer to describe themselves as protestors and protectors of the land. The defendants have constructed wooden structures on the land and have pitched a number of tents. The proceedings were issued in the Manchester District Registry of the Chancery Division of the High Court rather than in the local County Court, which would have been Wrexham County Court, in the principality of Wales. The proceedings were accompanied by the certificate required by CPR 55.3 (2). That explains that the action had been commenced in the Manchester District Registry of the High Court rather than the local County Court for two reasons. First, it is said that the claim is against protestors, and that there is a substantial risk of public disturbance. The number of protestors on the property is said to have increased since they first arrived on 17 th October this year, and the claimants believe they will rapidly increase over the forthcoming days and weeks. A large number of protestors in one case pose a substantial risk of public disturbance. Secondly, the claim is said to be against protestors and there is said to be serious harm to persons or property which is said properly to require immediate determi