Trespass

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

Trespass is the unlawful presence of a person on land in the possession of another. For examples of acts which have been found to amount to trespass, see Practice Note: Trespass—claims and defences.

The trespass must be to real and corporeal property, ie land or buildings, the vesture of land or the herbage of pasture. The benefit of an easement does not give sufficient standing to sue for trespass as long as it does not give exclusive possession.

There is no liability in trespass where there is no act of direct intrusion on another person’s property, though there may be in nuisance.

For more information regarding trespass, see Practice Notes: Trespass—claims and defences and Trespass—remedies.

Remedies

The methods of regaining possession from a trespasser which are available to a landowner include:

  1. •

    physical repossession

  2. •

    arrest of the trespasser by the police for a criminal offence

  3. •

    injunction (including quia timet and interim injunctions)

  4. •

    possession claim (including a claim for an interim possession order)

In addition to the above remedies which are available for regaining possession, a landowner may also seek damages in respect of

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property Disputes News

Property Disputes weekly highlights—21 August 2025

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: an Upper Tribunal decision upholding a restrictive covenant, citing the substantial practical benefits to objectors, various First-tier Tribunal decisions regarding the Electronic Communications Code and a Court of Session decision overturning a council's non-domestic rates decision due to inadequate legal consideration.

Property Disputes weekly highlights—14 August 2025

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: analyses of Court of Appeal decisions declaring a right to manage claim notice invalid for procedural non-compliance and interpreting a local authority’s discretionary succession policy, a High Court decision that resuscitating a conceded lease construction point is an abuse of process and an Upper Tribunal decision allowing partial modification of a restrictive covenant.

Insolvency, declarations of trust, loan agreements, artificial asset protection, sham transactions, transactions defrauding creditors, interspousal asset transfers, change of position defence and wife’s entitlement to share of husband’s assets (Sayers v Dixon)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held that six declarations of trust (DoTs) executed by the transferor (Mr Dixon) in favour of his wife (Mrs Dixon) constituted transactions defrauding his creditors within the meaning of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and that two of them, purporting to transfer all his future assets and income to Mrs Dixon, along with an accompanying loan agreement, were shams which were void and ineffective. It set aside the DoTs and ordered Mrs Dixon to restore the value of three transferred properties (which had been converted into £551,589 cash) to Mr Dixon’s trustees in bankruptcy (trustees) together with interest of £101,726. It also ordered an account to be taken of the funds that had been transferred to Mrs Dixon or on her behalf by Mr Dixon over the seven years between the date of the DoTs and his bankruptcy. The court dismissed Mrs Dixon’s defence of change of position to the trustees’ claim for restoration, finding that even if such a defence were generally available (which is unclear), she had not acted in good faith and could not rely on it. It also dismissed her defence that, having been married to Mr Dixon for many years, she was entitled to half his assets and/or an entitlement to a share of them by virtue of a right to be maintained. Written by Jonathan Lopian, barrister at New Square Chambers, who acted for the successful claimants.

Court of Appeal on right to manage, strict procedural compliance and equitable tenancies (Avon Freeholds Limited v Cresta Court E RTM Company Ltd)

Property Disputes analysis: The Court of Appeal held that a right to manage (RTM) company’s claim notice was invalid because the company failed to comply with section 78(1) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002) as it failed to serve an equitable long lessee with a notice inviting participation (participation notice) before serving the claim notice. The Court upheld the Upper Tribunal (UT) (Lands Chamber)’s decision that a tenant of an equitable long lease during the ‘registration gap’ is a ‘qualifying tenant’ within s 75 2002 Act, provided that there is no legal titleholder of that lease. However, the UT had erred in holding that the failure to serve that qualifying tenant with the participation notice did not render the claim notice invalid on the facts of the specific case. Instead, strict compliance is required upon a proper interpretation of the statute, in particular ss 78(1) and 79(2). Written by Sophie Gibson, barrister at Landmark Chambers, junior counsel for the Appellant.

View Property Disputes by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

What’s the limitation period for a trespass to land, and does limitation start from the date a continuing

What’s the limitation period for a trespass to land, and does limitation start from the date a continuing trespass began or does it renew each day?A claim of trespass to land is barred by lapse of the statutory period of limitation, which, except in certain specified cases, is six years from the

Trespass—remedies

Trespass—remediesThis Practice Note covers the remedies available to landowners who find their property has been unlawfully occupied by a trespasser or squatter, issues that may arise as a result of trespass, potential remedies available to the landowner including physical repossession, while taking

Establishing adverse possession of land

Establishing adverse possession of landThis is one of four Practice Notes on adverse possession. The others are:•Claiming title by adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1980 or the Land Registration Act 1925•Claiming title by adverse possession under the Land Registration Act 2002•Adverse

Trespassers—possession proceedings

Trespassers—possession proceedingsThis Practice Note covers the procedure to recover possession from trespassers who entered premises as trespassers (more commonly known as squatters), or who remained on land without the consent of the person entitled to possession, by issuing possession proceedings
What’s the limitation period for a trespass to land, and does limitation start from the date a continuing

What’s the limitation period for a trespass to land, and does limitation start from the date a continuing

What’s the limitation period for a trespass to land, and does limitation start from the date a continuing trespass began or does it renew each day?A claim of trespass to land is barred by lapse of the statutory period of limitation, which, except in certain specified cases, is six years from the

Trespass—remedies

Trespass—remedies

Trespass—remediesThis Practice Note covers the remedies available to landowners who find their property has been unlawfully occupied by a trespasser or squatter, issues that may arise as a result of trespass, potential remedies available to the landowner including physical repossession, while taking

Establishing adverse possession of land

Establishing adverse possession of land

Establishing adverse possession of landThis is one of four Practice Notes on adverse possession. The others are:•Claiming title by adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1980 or the Land Registration Act 1925•Claiming title by adverse possession under the Land Registration Act 2002•Adverse

Trespassers—possession proceedings

Trespassers—possession proceedings

Trespassers—possession proceedingsThis Practice Note covers the procedure to recover possession from trespassers who entered premises as trespassers (more commonly known as squatters), or who remained on land without the consent of the person entitled to possession, by issuing possession proceedings