header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 July 2010
Issue: 7425 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Public order

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Mayor of London v Hall and others [2010] EWHC 1613 (QB), [2010] All ER (D) 254 (Jun)

The test to be applied to lands which were open to the public to enjoy as visitors but not to occupy should be that the person seeking possession against trespassers would have to be able to assert a right to exclusive possession against those who sought to occupy the land.
 

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Ashurst's Chief Risk Officer joins Walkers

Excello Law—John Osborne

Excello Law—John Osborne

Northern family lawyer John Osborne joins Excello

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

Trio of promotions announced at Kidderminster law firm mfg Solicitors

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Company conspiracy clarified
A sole director can conspire with their own company for the purposes of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, the High Court has ruled in a judgment with potentially wide implications for business disputes
NLJ this week: Home is where intent lies
The Court of Appeal has reinforced that domicile depends on intention rather than residence alone, in a significant post-Brexit ruling on cross-border financial remedy claims
NLJ this week: Farewell to Chancery
The Chancery Division's long history comes to an end this autumn as it is reborn as the Business and Property Division, prompting questions over whether the shake-up is really necessary
NLJ this week: Silence carries a price
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
NLJ this week: Costs sting after a courtroom gamble
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll