Case: Adjourned Liam Wolfe v. Chris West (2025) CV 05

[xXLordLyonXx]

Liam Wolfe, Plaintiff

v.

Chris West, Defendant



Civil Complaint:

On March 25th, the Defendant was seen using blue concrete to block off the Plaintiff's rented space in the Defendant's store. The Defendant has since threatened legal action against the Plaintiff, although no discernable reason why has been presented. The Defendant is the one, however, that has committed wrongdoing. According to Section 2a of the Protection of Tenants Act, "Landlords are unable to obstruct, destroy, or otherwise modify rented regions without prior consent." The usage of blue concrete to block off access to the rented property from all directions but one, when the rented properly was previously a freely accessible, open-air plot, counts as obstruction, and violates this Act. This case is brought forward to restore the Plaintiff's full access to his plot, and gain restitution owed by the Defendant under the Protection of Tenants Act.


Parties:
Plaintiff - Liam Wolfe, represented by Lysander Lyon
Defendant - Chris West


Factual Allegations:
1) The Plaintiff's rented plot was previously completely unobstructed and fully accessible, as seen in Exhibit A.
2) The Defendant used blue concrete to obstruct all sides of the rented plot, leaving a 1x2 hole, as seen in Exhibits B, C, D, and E.
3) Obstruction of a rented plot is against the Protection of Tenants Act if it is not done with consent, as stated under Section 2a.

Legal Claims:
1) The Defendant's obstruction of the Plaintiff's rented plot violates Section 2a of the Protection of Tenants Act.

Prayer For Relief:
1) A permanent injunction against the Defendant, requiring the removal of the obstruction of the Plaintiff's plot and forbidding the Defendant from acting to obstruct the Defendant's plot again.
2) Payment of a $250 fine for violating the Protection of Tenants Act.
3) Payment of any and all court fees incurred by the Plaintiff for the duration of this case.
4) Payment of $5,000 in special damages to cover the legal fees incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant's actions.

Verification:

I, Lysander Lyon, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

As the exhibits do not appear to have uploaded in the initial filing, I have attached them here.

 

[Westray]

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles Civil Court (CR)

Case No. CV-25-05

Plaintiff: Liam Wolfe (ocg)
Defendant: Chris West (ChAkselsen1450)

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Liam Wolfe (ocg) v. Chris West (ChAkselsen1450). Failure to respond within 48 hours may result in a default judgement.

Both parties are ask to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, including proper formats, as well as the laws referenced in the complaint. Ensure that you comply with any court orders.
​

Signed,
Hon. Justice Raymond West

​

 

[ChAkselsen1450]

Ye ye I’m here

 

[Westray]

Ye ye I’m here

Thank you for indicating your presence. Please provide an answer to the complaint. You or your counsel must do so within 48 hours from now.

 

[ChAkselsen1450]

Response to complaint
The plaintiff claims the plot is obstructed. It remains fully accessible through a door made. The law the plaintiff is referencing does not include partial obstruction or change of surrounding property unless done so in a way where it would obstruct the access of the plot. Which it does not here as it is still accessible.

---

FACTUAL RESPONSE

1. The Plaintiff claims that their rented plot was "completely unobstructed and fully accessible" prior to the Defendant’s actions. However, the Defendant, as the owner and landlord of the property, has the right to regulate his own property.
2. The Defendant acknowledges placing blue concrete around parts of the Plaintiff’s rented space but asserts that the Plaintiff was still provided reasonable access to the plot through an available entrance (1x2 hole). The placement of blue concrete was neither destructive nor a permanent obstruction.
3. The Defendant did not violate Section 2a of the Protection of Tenants Act, as the modifications made were neither destructive nor unlawful. The Act does not specify that a rented plot must remain in an "open-air" state, nor does it prohibit landlords from managing the layout of their property.

---

LEGAL DEFENSES

1. No Violation of the Protection of Tenants Act
   • Section 2a of the Protection of Tenants Act states that "Landlords are unable to obstruct, destroy, or otherwise modify rented regions without prior consent." The Defendant’s actions do not meet the threshold for obstruction as defined by law. The Plaintiff still had reasonable access to the rented space.
   • The Act does not prevent landlords from implementing structural changes for practical property management purposes, provided they do not entirely restrict the tenant's access. The Plaintiff still had an entry point and was not deprived of their ability to use the rented plot.
2. Landlord’s Right to Manage Property
   • As per the Landlord Protection Act, the Defendant retains the right to manage and oversee the rental property to ensure proper organization and usage of the space.
   • The Defendant’s actions were executed in a manner that did not evict or remove the Plaintiff from their rented plot, nor were they intended to infringe upon the Plaintiff’s rights.
3. No Demonstrable Harm or Damages
   • The Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence of financial harm or damages directly caused by the Defendant’s actions.
   • The claim for $5,000 in special damages for legal fees is excessive, unsubstantiated, and not directly linked to the Defendant’s conduct.
   • The Plaintiff also claims a $250 fine is owed under the Protection of Tenants Act; however, the Defendant’s actions do not constitute a violation of said Act.

---

REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Based on the above arguments, the Defendant respectfully requests the following relief:

1. Dismissal of all claims with prejudice, as no legal violation has occurred.
2. Denial of the Plaintiff’s request for an injunction, as the Defendant’s actions do not constitute obstruction under the law.
3. Denial of the Plaintiff’s monetary demands, as there is no demonstrable harm.
4. Court costs and attorney fees to be awarded to the Defendant for defending against an unsubstantiated claim.

---

CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff has failed to prove that the Defendant violated the Protection of Tenants Act or caused any harm warranting legal or financial restitution. The Defendant acted within their legal rights as a landlord and provided continued access to the Plaintiff’s rented plot. This case should be dismissed in its entirety.

Respectfully submitted,
Chris West

 

[Westray]

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to present their opening statement.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Opening Statement

Your Honor,

This case will clearly prove the Defendant's violation of the Protection of Tenants Act.

Language is important. Obstruction can be used to refer to partial blockages, rather than a complete block. Hindering access to a plot is clearly obstruction. Context is also important. This is not a situation where the Plaintiff had three access points and now only has two. The Plaintiff's plot was fully accessible and fully visible, and now both are obstructed to just one access point. In this context, obstruction is more than clear - the Plaintiff rented a plot that was freely visible and accessible, which has now been reduced down to just one doorway. That marks a clear obstruction of the Plaintiff's access to his rented property.

Moreover, this was not the accidental obstruction of access that comes with "managing" one's property - it was an intentional act to obstruct the view of what was on the Plaintiff's property.

The Defendant's legal defenses are broad interpretations of law to favor his views in a situation that is actually quite clear. The claim that the Plaintiff still has "reasonable access" to his plot is farcical - no reasonable individual would consider constricting an open-air plot into a one by one access point "reasonable." Beyond this, the claim has no legal basis - the law does not say "Landlords are unable to obstruct, destroy, or otherwise modify rented regions without prior consent, unless such action maintains reasonable access." It says that, flat-out, landlords may not obstruct, destroy, or modify rented regions without consent.

The other claim to avoid being guilty under the Protection of Tenants Act is just as clearly wrong. Let's break that out into two parts. "The Act does not prevent landlords from implementing structural changes for practical property management purposes, provided they do not entirely restrict the tenant's access." Your Honor, you'd be hard pressed to find this in the Protection of Tenants Act, because there isn't a line in the Act that says it. It's a false interpretation intended to strengthen landlords from a bill that specifically acts to empower renters.

The second part of this claim is just as egregious. "The Plaintiff still had an entry point and was not deprived of their ability to use the rented plot." Individuals have many uses for plots. Someone renting a billboard could have just one block placed in front of said billboard, and that one block would clearly obstruct access and deprive the owner/renter of their ability to use the plot. The Plaintiff rented an open air plot, and the Defendant's actions clearly deprive the Plaintiff of his ability to use the plot as he wants.

The Plaintiff's plot was intentionally obstructed in a major way, which makes the Defendant guilty of violating the Protection of Tenants Act.

This will only be further proven throughout this trial.

 

[Westray]

Thank you. The Defendant has 48 hours to present their opening statement.

 

[ChAkselsen1450]

Closing statement.
I will not be responding to this trial anymore following this statement. Out of respect of the judges time I thought I'd let the court know so no extra time is spent waiting for my response.

My arguements from my answer to the complaint still stands equal to what they were.

The law referenced by the defense states obstruct/obstruction but does not entail anything regarding partial obstruction. This would be a grey area and best left up to parliament to clarify in an amendment

This also finds standing in the guiding principals

A Person’s House is One’s Own Castle:

The exception being where the law takes away such ability. Now the tenants protection against takes away the ability to obstruct a renters region. That being restrict access. But should ruling fall in the plaintiffs favour that opens up for not allowing construction around any rent regions that would partially obstruct them. As far as even new developments of land around could be argued against since it would in some % way obstruct the renters view, access or whatever.

The defense agrees that the law could benefit from an amendment to better clarify partial obstruction but as the law stands now it says only the definitive term of obstruction. This not being a qualifier of such as access remains. There is no such thing as partial access or complete access. The plaintiff can access their rent region fully through the doorway kept for the plaintiff.

The defense has followed the law to the letter and if the renter is unhappy with the amendment the defense is willing to offer reimbursement of the full rent period. Price sits at 10$ per interval.

The plaintiff also requested special damages.

Special damages is awarded where a cost is directly from a harm caused by the defendent. The defendent had nothing to do with the hiring of an expensive attorny for the plaintiff and thus by the opinion of the defense does not qualify as reasoning for special damages.
The rent region costs 10$ and thus is the only realistic damage that could be asked for. The plaintiff use of special damages here is an attempt to make the case over costly for the defense.

Should the plaintiff be awarded special damages as reqested anyone can hire a lawyer and get that lawyer to charge a 100k for their work over any minor dispute to financially target and harm citizens and would be a poor use of this.

As an example of how the defense would argue special damages be used instead is damage for slander in the loss of intended sales for example

Signed
Chris West

 

[Westray]

While the Court acknowledges the Defendant's attempt to summarize his case in a closing remark and note to the Court his anticipated lack of response, unfortunately it is not sufficient enough to address the proper procedures of this court. If the Defendant is unable to respond to the case for a period of time, they may hire counsel to represent them or request an extension.

Given that the Defendant has indicated a "closing statement" in his opening statement, Court will ask the Plaintiff if they wish to agree to a motion for an expedited hearing (closing statements and then verdict, pursuant to the Motions and Objections forum), or if they wish to continue the trial as is. If they wish to continue the trial in its regular format, then witnesses will be called next, and the Defendant will be expected to continue to respond to this case.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

The Plaintiff is amenable to expediting the hearing. We would request that this statement only be counted for either the opening or the closing statement, however, rather than being allowed to stand in for both.

 

[Westray]

The statement will be considered as an opening remark. Does the Defendant, @ChAkselsen1450, wish to agree with an expedited hearing?

 

[Westray]

Given the lack of response from the Defendant, the Court will move forward. Each party has 48 hours to indicate if they wish to call any witnesses.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Your Honor, it is not the Plaintiff's intention to call any witnesses for this trial.

 

[Westray]

Given that the Defendant has failed to respond and the Plaintiff has indicated no interest in calling witnesses, we will move forward to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to present a closing statement to the court.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Your Honor,

The defenses made by the Defendant are simply not legally valid defenses against his violation of the law.

Section 2a of the Protection of Tenants Act clearly states, "Landlords are unable to obstruct, destroy, or otherwise modify rented regions without prior consent." The Plaintiff did not give prior consent, and so the Defendant's actions constitute a violation of the act. Based on how the rented region was prior to the Defendant's actions, this clearly constitutes an obstruction of the rented plot - a freely accessible, clearly visible plot used for the purpose of posting signage has been intentionally obstructed by the Defendant. This is not some small partial obstruction, and is not necessary for the functioning of the Defendant's property.

The Defendant's claims that "reasonable access" was preserved; that the act does not prevent "structural changes for practical property management purposes"; and that the Plaintiff was "not deprived" of his ability to use the rented plot, are all clearly disproven claims. It is not reasonable to restrict an open access plot with at least nine different entry ways down to just one. The Protection of Tenants Act does not provide the referenced "exemption," and even if it did, the Defendant has provided no evidence that building a concrete square in the middle of his business, arguably inhibiting his business function, was done "practical property management," which he must provide evidence of if he wishes to make this claim. And, ultimately, the Plaintiff was clearly deprived of his ability to use the rented plot, because his use (posting signage) has been blocked by the Defendant's actions.

The Defendant's opening statement also bears problematic legal claims. The statement that "[The Protection of Tenants Act] would be a grey area and best left up to parliament to clarify in an amendment," referencing my statement that obstruction was clearly demonstrated in this situation, as it is near-complete obstruction of access, is unconstitutional. The Constitution, in creating this Supreme Court, very clearly states "The Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the law..." The claim that the common law principle "A Person's House is One's Own Castle" is acknowledged as invalid by the Defendant himself - the principle does not apply where the law provides exceptions, and this case is entirely predicated on such an exception.

The later claims in the Defendant's statement, Your Honor, are fear mongering at best and bad faith at worst. Ruling in the Plaintiff's favor does not set up future cases where all construction around rented regions is blocked, for fear of partially obstructing them. This is no "partial obstruction" - the Defendant intentionally blocked off the vast majority of the Plaintiff's rented plot. The Protection of Tenants Act only applies to landlords, not external construction companies working on other plots. Furthermore, the idea that ruling in favor of a fair payment in a case closing in on three weeks would somehow instead set up a situation where a $100,000 legal fee could ever be charged over a minor justification is hyperbolic and insulting.

As recognized by witness testimony in the Nim Surname v. Vanguard National Bank civil case, there are few active lawyers on the server. The standard, base fee charged by my firm for litigation is $5,000. This covers the research we have to do to familiarize ourselves with the client's case, as well as learn about all applicable legislation. It covers the multiple hours that are spent in consultation with the client and are spent crafting the case filing, statements, and other court interactions. It covers the expertise our firm demonstrates in legal services, and it is a price set in anticipation of situations like this case, where things can run long. This fee does vary by case; more complex or involved cases, like the aforementioned case against VNB, require more effort and involvement. This case, however, is a good representation of a standard case, covering the multiple hours my firm has put into this case, the knowledge I bring, and the time it has taken to reach a conclusion.



In summary - the Defendant's legal defenses are invalid. The referenced Guiding Principle does not apply. The situations conjured up by the Defendant in his opening statement are pure conjecture and have no legal basis. The legal defenses he made in his response to the Plaintiff's case filing have no basis in the laws they reference. This was a clear, intentional obstruction of nearly the entire rented plot, not some necessary "partial" objection. We respectfully ask that Your Honor rule in favor of the Plaintiff. We request that this ruling grant the full Prayer for Relief:

1) A court order requiring the complete removal of the obstruction.
2) Payment of a $250 fine, slightly more than the minimum $100 fine for violating the Protection of Tenants Act due to the severe nature of the obstruction and its intentionality.
3) Payment of the $1,000 court filing fee, which would not have been incurred without the Defendant's intentional act to obstruct the Plaintiff's rental property.
4) Payment of the $5,000 in special damages, which amounts to Lyon Law's standard fee and accounts for the time of this trial (nearly three full weeks), and the time spent in excess of six hours working on the case, along with the other above reasons that make up the value of the service we offer.

Thank you for your time, Your Honor.

 

[Westray]

Thank you.

The Defendant has 48 hours to present a closing statement to the court.

 

[Westray]

Given that the Defendant has failed to respond with a closing statement despite ample time, the Court will now enter a recess as it prepares a verdict.

 

[Westray]

Court Verdict
Azalea Isles Civil Court (CV)

​

Case No. CV-25-05
Liam Wolfe (ocg) v. Chris West (ChAkselsen1450)

Position of the Plaintiff
1. The Plaintiff, Liam Wolfe alleges that the Defendant violated the Protection of Tenants Act by obstructing a rented region without prior consent.
2. The Plaintiff contends that the structure placed by the Defendant rendered the rent region nearly inaccessible and unusable for its intended purpose, namely the posting of signage.
3. The Plaintiff argues that the obstruction was not necessary for the functioning of the Defendant’s property and was a clear breach of statutory tenant protections.

Position of the Defendant
1. The Defendant, Chris West, asserts that they preserved "reasonable access" to the rented plot and that their modifications were justified by practical considerations for their business operations.
2. The Defendant argues that the Protection of Tenants Act lacks clarity in its definitions and implied the matter should be clarified legislatively, not judicially.
3. The Defendant makes reference to the Guiding Principles of property rights, suggesting their modifications fall within permissible landlord actions according to A Person's House is One's Own Castle.

Court Opinion
1. The Protection of Tenants Act, as written, prohibits modifications to rented regions without tenant consent. In particular, the law states that landlords cannot "obstruct, destroy, or otherwise modify rented regions without prior consent" (§2a). The Court finds that the Defendant did make changes that impacted the Plaintiff's use of the area and failed to obtain the prior consent required by the law.
2. While the Court recognizes the Defendant's arguments regarding continued access, the way in which the rent region changed from having many access points to only one access point demonstrates a fundamental change that is not "reasonable" in any way.
3. The outcome of this case comes down to the matter of reasonability and the interpretation of the law. The Plaintiff entered into an arrangement with the Defendant by renting this region, and their use of this region was significantly changed without obtaining any prior consent or an eviction notice. If the Defendant did not want the Plaintiff renting their property, they had every opportunity to provide a two-day eviction notice rather than violating the law by obstructing the rented region.
4. As for the request of a permanent injunction to force the Defendant to remove the obstruction the rented region, the Court finds that there is no lawful basis to allow such request. Under §3ab, the Act referenced in this case outlines specific punishments/relief that must be provided. This includes a minimum fine and a complete refund of the remaining rent period. Given the explicit mention of relief based on a refund of rent, the Court finds that the law was written in a way that prioritizes rental refund over obstruction removal.

Decision
The Azalea Isles Civil Court hereby rules in favour of the Plaintiff, granting the following relief:

1. The Ministry of Justice shall charge the Defendant, Chris West (ChAkselsen1450), with a violation of the Protection of Tenants Act, for obstructing the Plaintiff's property, and issue a monetary fine of $250.
2. The Defendant, Chris West (ChAkselsen1450), shall pay all applicable court fees, pursuant to the Miscellaneous Changes & Foreign Affairs Omnibus Act, including the initial $1000 filing fee and the witness costs.
3. The Defendant, Chris West (ChAkselsen1450), shall transfer $5000 to the Plaintiff's counsel, Lysander Lyon (xXLordLyonXx), to cover the legal fees incurred by levying this case.
4. Instead of a permanent injunction, the Court will mandate a refund according to the letter of the law (see: #4 of Court Opinion). If the region is still being rented, the Defendant, Chris West (ChAkselsen1450), or applicable landlord, shall offer a complete refund of the remaining rent period, paying it in full to the Plaintiff, Liam Wolfe (ocg).

This trial is hereby adjourned. The Court thanks both parties for their time.

​

Signed,
Hon. Justice Raymond West

​