![[2025] EWHC 1955 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png){kind=logo}
The Judge was wrong to deny harassment and nuisance when the respondent first committed an offence
The Judge was wrong to deny harassment and nuisance when the respondent first committed an offence.
In light of the Judge’s finding, about which the Judge was not arguably wrong, as to ownership of the Contested Land and an easement over the Path, it is not reasonably arguable that installing CCTV to cover the Contested Land was an offence, nuisance or harassment by the Club.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The Claim and Counterclaim
- The Judgment
- The Court’s Approach on Appeal
- Grounds Of Appeal
- The Judge was wrong to ignore the Respondent’s threats of physical violence and acts of aggression in the Courtroom towards the Appellant
- The Judge was wrong to find, as he did, the ownership of the contested land
- The Judge was wrong to dismiss the argument that an unincorporated organisation cannot claim adverse possession
- The Judge was wrong to find that there was a claim for adverse possession and in granting adverse possession
- The Judge was wrong to grant an easement under the lost modern act
- The Judge was wrong to ignore the direct testimony of the respondent’s witness statement
- The Judge was wrong to deny harassment and nuisance when the respondent first committed an offence
- Other Complaints
- Paragraphs 5 and 6
- Paragraph 22
- Paragraph 24
- The Additional Grounds of Appeal
- Other Applications
- Order that the Respondent complies with the discovery application file on 12 December 2024
- Conclusions