Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
7 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Entick v Carrington: a) what does it underpin? b) key judgement? |
a) underpins the trespass/license binary. b) Lord Camden CJ: "no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without his leave". "every invasion of land... is a trespass. no man can set his foot upon my ground without my licence." |
|
|
Hall et al v The Mayor of London |
|
|
|
Appleby v UK (Application no. 44306/98) a) leading authority relating to... b) court? c) facts d) held |
a) human rights b) ECtHR c) relying on Art 10 and 11 ECHR, an environmental group complained that they had been prevented from meeting in their town centre (they were not granted permission to set up stands in privately owned shopping mall) d) the restriction was allowed. art 10 "does not bestow any freedom of forum for the exercise of that right". while "demographic, social economic and technological developments" are changing the way people contact each other, this does not require "the automatic creation of rights of entry to private property, or... all publicly owned property." where the restriction has prevented "any effective exercise of freedom of expression", a positive obligation may arise for state to protect enjoyment of ECHR rights by regulating property rights. |
|
|
Samede v The City of London a) facts b) what principle was confirmed b) key judgement |
a) 'Occupy' litigation (protests) b) even on public land, there are limits to how long Art 10 and 11 rights can be exercised c) Lord Neuberger: "minimum interference necessary" to deliver protection required. "balance". Factors considered include importance of location, extent of interference, legality of continuation of protest etc. both Articles 10 and 11 are engaged but "difficult to see how they can prevail over the will of the land owner". |
|
|
Manchester Ship Canal Developments Ltd v Persons Unknown - principle |
art.8 ECHR was capable of being engaged in relation to possession claims brought by private landowners against trespassers. However, it would only be in exceptional cases that a trespasser's art.8 rights would trump the landowner's rights under Protocol 1 art.1. |
|
|
R (Mott) v Environment Agency a) court b) Facts c) Q for court d) held (judge?) |
a) SC b) Environmental Agency decided that Mott could only take 30 salmon a year from a certain river in order to protect the salmon stock. c) was the limitation a "control on the use" of Mott's lease or a deprivation of property? (did it violate his rights under Protocol 1 Article 1 ECHR? d) Lord Carnwath: "“eliminated at least 95% of thebenefit of the right”, thus making it “closer to deprivation than merecontrol”. However, fair balance test still applies - was effect on Mott "excessive and disproportionate"? The limit was excessive and disproportionate - the agency had not properly considered whether a fair balance between protecting his fishing rights and protecting the public interest in environmental protection required that he be paid compensation. |
|
|
Entick v Carrington principle confirmed in what case? |
CIN v Rawlins |
