‘Possession claims should normally be brought in the County Court. Only exceptional circumstances justify starting a claim in the High Court.’

‘Circumstances which may in appropriate cases justify starting in the High Court are if... the claim is against trespassers and there is a substantial risk of public disturbance or of serious harm to persons or property which properly requires immediate determination.’

In the light of a 2007 decision, the scope for proceeding in the High Court may be wider than previously thought. There, land had been earmarked by the local council for the development of 875 homes; this led to environmental protests, with 20 protesters setting up camp and building tree houses. The High Court Master found that the trespassers intended to stay as long as it took to disrupt the plans for development and were causing greater financial loss the longer they remained on the land, and were causing daily damage to fencing. Thus, the claimant was suffering serious financial loss and harm , plus there was a ‘ substantial risk of public disturbance’ during the eviction; accordingly, summary possession was granted. On appeal, the High Court made it clear it would not interfere with the Master’s discretion. The end result, therefore, is that if there is an imminent danger of damage to property, with likely significant disturbance or harm to people, then actions against trespassers are likely to require ‘immediate determination’ and so may be heard in the High Court. The case also confirms that the court can properly take into account the substantial risk to public disturbance and harm to persons on enforcement for any order (even though that will not have taken place at the time of the court order). Thus the PD is not limited simply to what has occurred at the time proceedings are issued, but also contemplates what may happen in the future. Needless to say, this can be very important when dealing with squatting cases.

Clearly, cases of this sort always depend on their own facts. But, this decision seems to make it clear that ‘exceptional circumstances’ will not be as exceptional as might previously have been thought. See commentary on Mutley v Somerset [2007] EWHC 3475 (QB) noted in [2008] 216 Property Law Journal 10 .© Practical Lawyer