Matt Champ has shown once again why he is developing a reputation for being the person to go to when urgent action is required.

On 10 March 2021 Matt’s client, who runs a livery yard business in Canterbury, was informed that a third party was in the process of purchasing the yard from the current owner and, as a result, wanted Matt’s client to vacate the yard by 31 March 2021. The third party informed Matt’s client that she would be attending on the 17 March 2021 to carry out a ‘further inspection’. The fact that any inspection had been carried out was news to Matt’s client. All of this was despite Matt’s client having a 5 year lease which had at least 3 years left to run.

A few days later, Matt’s client was contacted by the third party who attempted to place severe pressure on Matt’s client to vacate the yard and confirmed that, regardless of Matt’s client’s lease, Matt’s client had to vacate and the third party was ‘prepared to go to prison´ if needs be.

Matt was then contacted and entered into discussions with the third party, highlighting the unlawfulness of the proposed actions and requiring undertakings that the third party would not do as she was threatening. Those undertakings were not provided.

In order to protect Matt’s client’s position, Matt therefore drafted the paperwork and applied for a without notice pre-action injunction to prevent the third party from being able to go through with her threats and arranged for the papers to be heard by Mr Justice Green in the Applications Court on 16 March 2021. All of this was drafted, finalised and prepared within 18 hours of Matt being instructed to make the application.

Matt instructed Ben Leb, Counsel, of Stour Chambers to put his client’s point across and Mr Justice Michael Green agreed with the submissions put before him:

It seems clear to me that there is a serious issue to be tried. The Respondent is clearly intent on revisiting which, if done without consent, it is trespass. Further, if attempts are made to evict the Applicant without a court order then that is clearly an unlawful eviction. Damages are clearly not adequate, the yard is essential to the Applicant running her business. It is obvious that the balance of convenience is in favour of the application being granted. For those reasons, I shall make the prohibitory injunction in the terms sought.

Matt says:

It was a shame that this application was needed in the first place. However, ignorance is not a defence and should be a warning to everyone that, before taking drastic action, get legal advice. If you do not adhere to the law, and do act reasonably, you can find yourself on the wrong end of an injunctive order which can have disastrous consequences.