Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Susan Wu v Chelmsford City Council

[2023] EWCA Crim 338
A landlord was convicted of illegally evicting and harassing her tenants. Even though the judge made a mistake explaining the law, the court said the landlord's actions clearly broke the law, so the convictions stood. The court also clarified that only one bad act is needed to prove harassment, not many.

Key Facts

  • Susan Wu (appellant) was convicted of two counts of unlawful eviction and two counts of unlawful harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
  • Wu was the landlord of a property occupied by the Krishnamoorthys.
  • Wu changed the locks on the property and initially refused to give the Krishnamoorthys new keys.
  • Wu also disconnected the water supply and refused to reconnect it.
  • The Krishnamoorthys were not physically prevented from entering the property after the locks were changed.
  • The trial judge amended the charges to remove the attempt element of unlawful eviction.

Legal Principles

The actus reus of unlawful eviction requires actual physical deprivation of occupation.

Protection from Eviction Act 1977, s.1(2)

One act is sufficient to satisfy the 'acts' requirement in unlawful harassment under s.1(3A).

Protection from Eviction Act 1977, s.1(3A), Interpretation Act 1978, s.6

A refusal to rectify a previous action can constitute a positive act, not merely an omission.

Protection from Eviction Act 1977, s.1(3A)

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 does not define harassment for the purposes of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

Protection from Eviction Act 1977, s.1(3)(3A); Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Concessions made during a trial are generally binding, and will not be easily overturned on appeal.

R v. R [2015] EWCA Crim 1941; R. v E [2018] EWCA 2426 (Crim); FSA v. Bakers of Nailsea Ltd [2020] EWHC 3632 (Admin)

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

While the trial judge's direction on the actus reus of unlawful eviction was wrong in law, the appellant's convictions were safe due to the concession made on her behalf and the inevitable conviction on the alternative offence of attempted deprivation.

Appeal dismissed.

One act (disconnecting the water supply) was sufficient for unlawful harassment, and the refusal to reconnect constituted a positive act.

Appeal dismissed.

There is no basis to import the 'course of conduct' requirement from the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 into the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.