header-logo header-logo

Mobile restrictions

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

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll