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

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll