In tree law, words matter, sometimes more than people realise.
Two phrases that seem abstract in a law textbook, in rem and in personam, become vitally important when we’re dealing with Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), enforcement, and the consequences of unlawful works.
Recently, the distinction became very clear in the well-publicised Newport City Council case, where substantial unlawful works to protected trees resulted in a large criminal fine. The case highlighted something that many homeowners (and even some contractors) misunderstand:
👉 The protection of a TPO is in rem, but the fine for breaching it is in personam.
Let’s break that down.
What Does In Rem Mean in Tree Law?
In rem means “against the thing.”
In legal terms, it refers to rights or obligations that attach to the land itself, regardless of who owns it.
In legal terms, it refers to rights or obligations that attach to the land itself, regardless of who owns it.
According to your uploaded explainer:
“A legal obligation or action that attaches to land… it binds the land itself, regardless of who owns it.” In_Rem_vs_In_Personam_Explainer
In the planning and environmental world, classic examples include:
-
Tree Preservation Orders
-
Section 106 agreements
-
Restrictive covenants
-
Conservation covenants
These obligations run with the land.
So when a TPO is made on a tree or woodland, every future owner inherits that responsibility automatically.
So when a TPO is made on a tree or woodland, every future owner inherits that responsibility automatically.
The tree doesn’t stop being protected because the title changed hands.
The TPO “sticks” to it. Forever.
The TPO “sticks” to it. Forever.
What Does In Personam Mean?
In personam means “against the person.”
These obligations bind a specific individual, not the land, and they don’t transfer on sale.
Examples (from your document):
-
Planning Contravention Notices
-
Temporary Stop Notices
-
Civil liability in trespass or nuisance
In_Rem_vs_In_Personam_Explainer
And crucially:
👉 The criminal penalty for breaching a TPO is always in personam.
Only the person who did the act (or who caused or permitted it) can be fined or convicted.
Only the person who did the act (or who caused or permitted it) can be fined or convicted.
How the Newport City Council Case Makes This Crystal Clear
In the Newport prosecution — where extensive, damaging works were carried out on protected trees — the following principles played out:
1️⃣ The TPO protection was in rem
The trees were protected because the TPO attached to the land, not the owner.
Whether the homeowner understood the TPO, agreed with it, or even knew about it was irrelevant.
The duty to comply existed regardless.
The duty to comply existed regardless.
2️⃣ The criminal fine was in personam
The court imposed a significant fine on the individuals responsible, because:
-
They caused or permitted the offending works
-
They failed to obtain consent
-
The harm was severe
The fine did not attach to the property.
It did not pass to any successor owner.
It sat squarely on the shoulders of the people who committed the offence.
It did not pass to any successor owner.
It sat squarely on the shoulders of the people who committed the offence.
Why This Distinction Matters So Much in TPO Enforcement
A. “I didn’t know it was protected” doesn’t work
Because the TPO is in rem, ignorance is not a defence.
B. Selling the property doesn’t make liability disappear
If you topped a TPO tree unlawfully three months before moving house, the fine remains yours.
The TPO stays with the land; the criminal liability stays with you.
The TPO stays with the land; the criminal liability stays with you.
C. Contractors face personal exposure
A tree surgeon can be prosecuted in their own name if they failed to check a TPO or relied blindly on client information — a theme we’ve seen in multiple council prosecutions this year.
D. Homeowners often misunderstand where responsibility lies
Many assume a TPO is a “local-authority issue” rather than a binding land charge.
Understanding the in rem nature of a TPO is essential for risk management.
Understanding the in rem nature of a TPO is essential for risk management.
Applying This to Everyday Tree Law Scenarios
Scenario 1: You buy a house and the previous owner never told you about a TPO
The trees are still protected — in rem.
You are now bound.
You are now bound.
Scenario 2: You unlawfully fell a TPO tree and sell the house six months later
You personally remain liable for all enforcement, penalties, and replacement duties — in personam.
Scenario 3: A contractor carries out unlawful works
Both the contractor and the homeowner may be prosecuted, depending on who caused or permitted the activity.
Simple Summary
-
In Rem = “Sticks to the land — whoever owns it is bound.”
-
In Personam = “Sticks to the person — the duty doesn’t transfer with ownership.”
In_Rem_vs_In_Personam_Explainer
In the Newport case, the TPO stuck to the land.
The fine stuck to the people who breached it.
The fine stuck to the people who breached it.
A perfect illustration of why every homeowner, contractor, and developer must understand both concepts before they ever pick up a chainsaw.
