Melhuish v Fishburn

Melhuish v Fishburn

The oral agreement between the parties was a boundary agreement involving only trivial transfers of land and thus did not fall foul of Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. The trial was not procedurally unfair, as the main issue was always whether the boundary had been agreed, and the judge was entitled to prefer the defendant's evidence. The judge's orders on payment and costs were within his discretion.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Gordon Melhuish; Respondent/defendant: Fishburn
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Boundary Agreements, Oral Agreements and Statutory Requirements, Procedural Fairness, Costs Orders
Property Law Civil Procedure Boundary Agreements Oral Agreements and Statutory Requirements Procedural Fairness 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Melhuish

Appellant/claimant

Fishburn

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an enforceable oral agreement altering the boundary between the parties' properties
  2. 2 Whether the agreement fell foul of Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  3. 3 Whether the trial was procedurally unfair due to late change in the defendant's case

Ratio Decidendi

The oral agreement between the parties was a boundary agreement involving only trivial transfers of land and thus did not fall foul of Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. The trial was not procedurally unfair, as the main issue was always whether the boundary had been agreed, and the judge was entitled to prefer the defendant's evidence. The judge's orders on payment and costs were within his discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs order in favour of the defendant as per the trial judge's discretion