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.