Djurberg vs Thames Properties (Hampton) Limited & Others

This case concerned a dispute over an alleged maritime lien and tortious interference with goods involving a houseboat moored on the River Thames.

TLDR:

• Djurberg claimed a maritime lien over a houseboat for unpaid mooring fees.
• The houseboat was removed without Djurberg's consent, leading to a claim for tortious interference with goods.
• The High Court struck out the claim, but the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on one ground.

The appellant, Myck Djurberg, trading as Hampton Riviera, claimed a maritime lien over a houseboat moored on the River Thames due to unpaid mooring fees. The houseboat, known as HRB1, was allegedly repossessed by Djurberg under a lien notice. However, the houseboat was later removed by the respondents, Thames Properties (Hampton) Limited and its directors, without Djurberg's consent.

Djurberg filed a claim for tortious interference with goods, asserting that the removal of the houseboat without his consent constituted a wrongful act. The High Court struck out the claim, stating it failed to disclose any cause of action. Djurberg appealed, arguing there was an arguable case for tortious interference.

The Court of Appeal, led by Lord Justice Lewison, reviewed the factual background and the legal basis for the claim. The court acknowledged that if Djurberg could establish the existence of a maritime lien, unpaid fees, and his possessory rights, he might have a valid claim for conversion and trespass to goods.

The court examined the standard form of berthing licence and the relevant clauses, noting that a lien depends on possession and is destroyed once the goods are removed. The court also considered the procedural shortcomings in the High Court's handling of the case, particularly the lack of formal application notice and the disregard for procedural safeguards for a litigant in person.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the sole ground that there might be an arguable case for tortious interference with goods. The court emphasized the need for Djurberg to amend his particulars of claim to clearly plead the contract terms, the unpaid fees, and his rights over the property.

This case highlights the complexities of maritime liens and the importance of procedural fairness in litigation involving unrepresented parties. It provides valuable insights for property and maritime law practitioners dealing with similar disputes.