Palfrey v Wilson & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 94 (15 February 2007)

Palfrey v Wilson & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 94 (15 February 2007)

The defendants, through Mr Heelas, had established adverse possession of the wall by acts of exclusive possession, intention to possess, and dispossession of the paper owner, satisfying the five conditions for adverse possession. The judge's findings of fact were justified and should not be disturbed. The costs order, including indemnity costs from the date of the reasonable settlement offer, was within the judge's discretion and appropriate in the circumstances.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 94
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Palfrey; Respondents/defendants: Wilson & Anr.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for permission to appeal costs order refused.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Boundary Disputes, Costs Orders
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Boundary Disputes Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Palfrey

Appellant/claimant

Wilson & Anr.

Respondents/defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants acquired title to the disputed wall by adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's order for costs, including indemnity costs, was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants, through Mr Heelas, had established adverse possession of the wall by acts of exclusive possession, intention to possess, and dispossession of the paper owner, satisfying the five conditions for adverse possession. The judge's findings of fact were justified and should not be disturbed. The costs order, including indemnity costs from the date of the reasonable settlement offer, was within the judge's discretion and appropriate in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for permission to appeal costs order refused.

Orders

  • Judge's order that the wall is the property of the defendants confirmed.
  • Claimant to pay defendants' costs, including indemnity costs from 24 February 2004.