Buxton v MJ Hillson and Associates & Anor [2006] EWHC 276 (QB) (20 February 2006)

Buxton v MJ Hillson and Associates & Anor [2006] EWHC 276 (QB) (20 February 2006)

The application is dismissed because the issue of boundaries was conclusively determined in previous proceedings, the judgment is binding on Dr Buxton and the defendants as privies, no fresh evidence of fraud is presented, and the current proceedings are an abuse of process. Even if the claim had merit, a mandatory injunction would not be granted as damages would be an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience favours the defendants.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 276 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Dr J A Buxton; First Defendant: M J Hillson and Associates (including English Partnerships and Avebury Projects Limited); Second Defendant: Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Association
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction (queen's Bench Division) / Interim Application Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; claim struck out as abuse of process and without merit.
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Injunctions, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Specific Performance, Option to Purchase, Mandatory Injunction
Property Law Civil Procedure Boundary Disputes Injunctions Res Judicata Abuse of Process Specific Performance Option to Purchase +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr J A Buxton

Claimant

M J Hillson and Associates (including English Partnerships and Avebury Projects Limited)

First Defendant

Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Association

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunction (queen's Bench Division) / Interim Application Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim or mandatory injunction to prevent or reverse building works on land he claims is his or over which he claims a pre-emptive right to buy
  2. 2 Whether the previous judgment as to boundaries is binding on the claimant and privies
  3. 3 Whether the present proceedings constitute an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed because the issue of boundaries was conclusively determined in previous proceedings, the judgment is binding on Dr Buxton and the defendants as privies, no fresh evidence of fraud is presented, and the current proceedings are an abuse of process. Even if the claim had merit, a mandatory injunction would not be granted as damages would be an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience favours the defendants.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; claim struck out as abuse of process and without merit.

Orders

  • Claimant's application for injunction dismissed.
  • Claim struck out against all defendants and associates.