Not going quietly…

Or round 3 of Ms Pritchard’s refusal to give up her former property to the ‘We buy your right to buy home’ firm that had obtained possession.

Fineland Investments Limited v Pritchard (2011) Ch D 17/05/2011 [Note on Lawtel, unreported elsewhere]

Readers may recall the possession judgment, and the multi stranded (and multi partied) appeal of the without notice warrant of eviction, in both of which Ms P was unsuccessful. After having been evicted and failed in her application for re-entry, it appears that Ms P was not going to accept that as a conclusion. She, her son and two others had allegedly gained access to the property and changed the locks. Fineland applied for a writ of restitution, enforced the same day. Fineland then put in occupants.

Fineland applied for an interim injunction “restraining the respondent from trespassing on a property from which she had been evicted, or from interfering with the quiet enjoyment of the occupiers”. The question before the High Court was whether it would be appropriate to grant the injunction.

The High Court held that the established approach was to consider whether:
i) there was a sufficient issue to be tried,
ii) whether damages were adequate, and
iii) where the balance of convenience lay.

In this application Fineland met all of the criteria. The interim injunction was granted until further order.

About Giles Peaker

Giles Peaker is a solicitor and partner in the Housing and Public Law team at Anthony Gold Solicitors in South London. You can find him on Linkedin and on Twitter. Known as NL round these parts, and still is Nearly Legal on Google +


  1. It is not immediately obvious (to me at least) which of the many rounds of litigation it relates to, but Ms Pritchard has an application for permission to appeal, a stay of execution, permission to rely on further evidence and for disclosure, all listed before Davis LJ tomorrow morning (06/11/12).

  2. My son did not re-enter the property at any time. Fine land Investments is [potentially libellous comments removed – NL] Giles Peeker can sneer for all he’s worth, but that doesn’t change a thing. There never was a mortgage to me. [Potentially libellous comments removed – NL]. Look for into that Giles. Or are you all in it together?

    • Our note is based on a case report and follows what the report said. You will see that gaining entry to the property is described as ‘allegedly’, because it was alleged by Fineland at this hearing. Our note does not say that you or your son did re-enter the property.

      Your accusations against Fineland and others are not something that we can or will comment on until there has been a finding by the Court. Until then, we cannot allow them to appear on this site. If you do make them again, they will be deleted and you may be banned from the site.

      There is no sneering in our report. And I am happy to confirm I have no connection with, or knowledge of Fineland or anyone else involved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *