YADEVINDER SINGH HOTHI v CLIVE STOKES

YADEVINDER SINGH HOTHI v CLIVE STOKES

The trial judge's findings as to the location of the boundary were not inconsistent or erroneous; the conveyancing plans did not trump the factual findings regarding the historic fence line. There was no improper alteration of the judgment, no finding of adverse possession, and the restriction on witness evidence was a proper exercise of discretion. The refusal of exemplary damages was not a misdirection in law and was a matter for the trial judge's evaluation.

Parties
Claimant/respondent/cross Appellant: Yadevinder Singh Hothi; Defendant/appellant: Clive Stokes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Cross-appeal dismissed; Extension of time for appeal granted; Permission to appeal granted on certain grounds but all substantive challenges fail.
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Trespass, Damages, Case Management, Adverse Possession
Property Law Civil Procedure Boundary Disputes Trespass Damages Case Management Adverse Possession

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yadevinder Singh Hothi

Claimant/respondent/cross Appellant

Clive Stokes

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in determining the precise location of the boundary between 47 Straight Road and 5 Glebe Road
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge was wrong to alter his judgment after oral delivery
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge wrongly found or relied on adverse possession without a pleaded case

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's findings as to the location of the boundary were not inconsistent or erroneous; the conveyancing plans did not trump the factual findings regarding the historic fence line. There was no improper alteration of the judgment, no finding of adverse possession, and the restriction on witness evidence was a proper exercise of discretion. The refusal of exemplary damages was not a misdirection in law and was a matter for the trial judge's evaluation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Cross-appeal dismissed; Extension of time for appeal granted; Permission to appeal granted on certain grounds but all substantive challenges fail.

Orders

  • Extension of time for filing appellant’s notice to 31 August 2021 granted.
  • Permission to appeal granted on Grounds One, Two, and Three; refused on Ground Four.