Scammell & Ors v Dicker [2005] EWCA Civ 405 (14 April 2005)

Scammell & Ors v Dicker [2005] EWCA Civ 405 (14 April 2005)

A consent order settling a boundary dispute is not void for uncertainty where the boundary can be ascertained from the order and plan, even if there are practical difficulties or minor ambiguities in implementation. The court should strive to uphold such agreements, and only declare them void for uncertainty if it is impossible to give them any sensible content. In this case, the order and plan were sufficiently certain to be given practical effect.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 405
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Scammell and others; Appellant/defendant: Dicker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Consent Orders, Uncertainty in Contracts, Interpretation of Contracts, Overriding Objective (cpr)
Property Law Civil Procedure Boundary Disputes Consent Orders Uncertainty in Contracts Interpretation of Contracts Overriding Objective (cpr)

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scammell and others

Respondent/claimant

Dicker

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1994 consent order compromising a boundary dispute was void for uncertainty
  2. 2 Whether the court should set aside a consent order for uncertainty where parties disagree on its implementation

Ratio Decidendi

A consent order settling a boundary dispute is not void for uncertainty where the boundary can be ascertained from the order and plan, even if there are practical difficulties or minor ambiguities in implementation. The court should strive to uphold such agreements, and only declare them void for uncertainty if it is impossible to give them any sensible content. In this case, the order and plan were sufficiently certain to be given practical effect.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed; the consent order of February 1994 is not void for uncertainty and stands.