header-logo header-logo

12 May 2011 / John De Waal KC , Andy Creer
Issue: 7465 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Mobile restrictions

Andy Creer & John de Waal consider the effect of the decision in Murphy v Wyatt

In a characteristically clear and illuminating judgment in the case of Murphy v Wyatt [2011] EWCA Civ 408, [2011] All ER (D) 112 (Apr) Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, has defined the parameters of the protection given by the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (MoHA 1983) to occupiers of caravans and mobile homes.

The two key questions which were the focus of the appeal were:

(i) Can someone who with their landlord’s agreement brings a mobile home onto land let to them for another purpose gain the protection of MoHA 1983?  The answer given by the Court of Appeal was “No”.

(ii) Can MoHA 1983 apply to a letting of land that was more than just the pitch on which the mobile home was sited? The answer was again “No”.

Factual background

The appeal was from a decision in the Central London County Court in which the respondent/claimant landlord, Diane Murphy, sought possession of 1.7 acres of land let to the appellant/defendant tenant, Carol

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll