000			01870cab a2200313 4500
001			ABS59692
008			090401t1998 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u89592
041			_aeng
245			_aMcLeod v Butterwick: Khazanchi and another v Faircharm Investments Ltd and another
260			_c1998
350			_a0
490			_aWeekly Law Reports _v[1998] 1 WLR 1603-1629(27)
520			_aCA 17 March 1998. In the first case, the sheriff had no written walking possesssion agreement. He broke into the plaintiffs house, removed goods and then installed new locks. The plaintiff appealed against the judges decision not to impose an injunction to restrain the sheriff from selling the goods. In the second case, the bailiff, after entering into a walking possession agreement, forced entry, removed the goods and then installed new locks. The tenants appealed against the county court decision that the forced entry was lawful. "Held" a bailiff or sheriffwas not entitled, after impounding forcibly, to re-enter premises except where he was expelled by force or had been deliberately excluded by the tenant. A locked door was not sufficient to justify a forcible re-entry. Although the forcible re-entry was unlawful in both cases the appeals were dismissed. The sheriff was in lawful possession of the goods and entitled to sell them. The tenants had not proved any recoverable damage.
650			_aABINGDON DC V O`GORMAN
650			_aBAILIFFS
650			_aBANNISTER V HYDE
650			_aDAMAGES
650			_aDISTRESS FOR RENT ACT 1737
650			_aDISTRESS FOR RENT
650			_aEAGLETON V GUTTERIDGE
650			_aFORCIBLE ENTRY
650			_aMCLEOD V BUTTERWICK
650			_aWALKING POSSESSION AGREEMENTS
650			_aWRIT OF FIERI FACIAS
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c10/11/1998
999			_c56701 _d56701