Writing in NLJ this week, Thomas Rothwell and Kavish Shah of Falcon Chambers review conflicting decisions on whether CPR 70.2A empowers courts to authorise forced entry. While some judges have approved orders allowing locks to be drilled, others argue procedural rules cannot override the long-standing principle that a person’s home is their castle.
Recent decisions have edged towards permitting carefully limited forced access, but the reasoning differs significantly. The authors argue this uncertainty leaves landlords facing inconsistent enforcement routes, with some directed towards committal proceedings instead.
They conclude that only appellate guidance can resolve the confusion and provide a clear, consistent framework for enforcing legitimate rights of access.
