Fairacre Investments Ltd.v Earlrose Golf & Leisure Ltd & Anor [2006] EWHC 678 (Ch) (21 February 2006)

Fairacre Investments Ltd.v Earlrose Golf & Leisure Ltd & Anor [2006] EWHC 678 (Ch) (21 February 2006)

The defendants failed to prove that Mr Barron had actual authority from Guinea (the claimant's predecessor) to enter into binding oral boundary agreements. Mr Barron's evidence was that he had no such authority and did not agree to alter the boundary. The alleged agreements were not established on the facts, and even if they had been, they would have been void for non-compliance with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. There was no proprietary estoppel or constructive trust in favour of the defendants. The defendants' use of the disputed land constituted trespass.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 678 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Fairacre Investments Limited; First Defendant: Earlrose Golf & Leisure Limited; Second Defendant: Sweeney Environmental Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim (boundary/trespass) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Trespass, Proprietary Estoppel, Constructive Trust, Land Registration, Oral Boundary Agreements
Property Law Land Law Equity Boundary Disputes Trespass Proprietary Estoppel Constructive Trust Land Registration +1 more

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fairacre Investments Limited

Claimant

Earlrose Golf & Leisure Limited

First Defendant

Sweeney Environmental Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim (boundary/trespass) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants trespassed on the claimant's land (the Lizzards)
  2. 2 Whether alleged oral boundary agreements in 1994 and 1996 altered the legal boundary
  3. 3 Whether proprietary estoppel or constructive trust arises in favour of the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to prove that Mr Barron had actual authority from Guinea (the claimant's predecessor) to enter into binding oral boundary agreements. Mr Barron's evidence was that he had no such authority and did not agree to alter the boundary. The alleged agreements were not established on the facts, and even if they had been, they would have been void for non-compliance with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. There was no proprietary estoppel or constructive trust in favour of the defendants. The defendants' use of the disputed land constituted trespass.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants to remove all materials deposited on the claimant's land in the disputed areas.
  • Injunction restraining defendants from entering the Lizzards except for the right of way.