Jones & Anor v Persons Unknown & Anor

In a possession claim against trespassers, a claim is not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds merely because occupiers rely on environmental, political or human-rights objections to the underlying activity. A substantial dispute requires evidence relevant to the claimant’s entitlement to possession, such as consent or a licence. Where service complies with the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the court may determine the claim at the first hearing. Section 22 of the Welsh Language Act 1993 applies to proceedings taking place in Wales and does not confer an entitlement to conduct proceedings in Welsh in an English court. Convention rights did not provide a defence on the facts. The court declined to make a costs order against a person joined at the hearing, but indicated that a different approach might be taken in future cases.

The claimants sought possession of their land at Borras Head, Wrexham, from persons occupying it in connection with an anti-fracking protest. The claim was issued in the High Court at Manchester and served shortly before the hearing. Brian Morgan applied, through his McKenzie friend, to strike out the claim or adjourn it and transfer it to Wales. The applications raised service, venue, Welsh-language rights, fair-trial concerns, alleged consent to occupation and reliance on Convention rights. The central issue was whether the possession claim was genuinely disputed on grounds which appeared to be substantial under CPR 55.8(2).

1. Possession order. The court was satisfied that the claimants owned the land and that service had been effected in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The defendants had received sufficient notice for the first hearing.
2. High Court venue. The requirements for issuing a possession claim against trespassers in the High Court were satisfied. The evidence established a substantial risk of public disturbance and serious harm to persons or property requiring immediate determination. There was no geographical restriction requiring the claim to be heard in Wales.
3. Welsh language. Section 22 of the Welsh Language Act 1993 applies to proceedings taking place in Wales. It does not extend to proceedings heard in England, even where the dispute concerns land in Wales. The court applied Williams v Cowell [2000] 1 WLR 187. An interpreter could be provided where elementary fairness required one, but no such issue arose.
4. Substantial dispute. CPR 55.8(2) requires case-management directions where a possession claim is genuinely disputed on grounds appearing substantial. No such dispute was shown. There was no evidence of express or implied consent or licence preventing the claimants from recovering possession. The environmental and political objections concerned the merits of fracking, not the defendants’ status as trespassers.
5. Convention rights. Articles 6, 8, 10 and 11 of the Convention did not establish a defence to possession. The court applied the reasoning in Manchester Ship Canal Developments Ltd v Persons Unknown [2014] EWHC 645 (Ch). The claimants’ property rights under article 1 of the First Protocol were also relevant.
6. Orders and costs. Possession was ordered after 11.59 pm on 21 November 2014, with directions to remove tents, equipment and rubbish. Permission was given to enforce a writ of possession on Sunday. No order for costs was made against Mr Morgan, following the approach in Thomas Andrew Wensley & Ors v Persons Unknown [2014] EWHC 3702 (Ch), although the judge warned that future cases might attract costs orders.