Parker v Hutchings [2004] EWCA Civ 254 (17 February 2004)

Parker v Hutchings [2004] EWCA Civ 254 (17 February 2004)

The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal after refusal to re-open under Taylor v Lawrence, that no compelling reason justified a second appeal on the boundary dispute, and that the Grepe v Loam order was properly made and not subject to appeal on the grounds advanced.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 254
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Andrew Parker; Defendant/appellant: Graham Hutchings
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal; Review of Prior Orders
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeals, Boundary Disputes, Multi Track Allocation, Slip Rule, Grepe V Loam Order, Taylor V Lawrence Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Property Law Appeals Boundary Disputes Multi Track Allocation Slip Rule Grepe V Loam Order Taylor V Lawrence Jurisdiction

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Parker

Claimant/respondent

Graham Hutchings

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal; Review of Prior Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal after refusal to re-open under Taylor v Lawrence jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether there is a compelling reason to allow a second appeal regarding the boundary dispute
  3. 3 Whether the Grepe v Loam order was properly made and should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal after refusal to re-open under Taylor v Lawrence, that no compelling reason justified a second appeal on the boundary dispute, and that the Grepe v Loam order was properly made and not subject to appeal on the grounds advanced.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused on all grounds
  • No order for costs