Smith v Brough [2005] EWCA Civ 261 (22 February 2005)

Smith v Brough [2005] EWCA Civ 261 (22 February 2005)

The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the delay of 39 months was unjustified, the grounds for appeal were available immediately after judgment, and there was no good explanation for the failure to file a timely appeal. The public interest in finality of litigation and prejudice to the respondents outweighed any prejudice to the applicants.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 261
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Patricia Renee Smith; Claimant/respondent: Barry Hutchinson; Defendant/applicant: Jean Brough; Defendant/applicant: Paul Danby Brough
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Estoppel, Boundary Agreements, Extension of Time for Appeal, Finality of Litigation
Property Law Civil Procedure Boundary Disputes Estoppel Boundary Agreements Extension of Time for Appeal Finality of Litigation

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Renee Smith

Claimant/respondent

Barry Hutchinson

Claimant/respondent

Jean Brough

Defendant/applicant

Paul Danby Brough

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in finding a boundary agreement or estoppel regarding the boundary between 44 and 46 Middle Drive
  2. 2 Whether the application for extension of time to appeal should be granted after a 39-month delay
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the delay of 39 months was unjustified, the grounds for appeal were available immediately after judgment, and there was no good explanation for the failure to file a timely appeal. The public interest in finality of litigation and prejudice to the respondents outweighed any prejudice to the applicants.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Applicant to pay respondent's costs to be assessed if not agreed
  • Payment of £12,500 costs on account within 14 days