Hatton & Anor v Connew & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 1560 (10 December 2013)

Hatton & Anor v Connew & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 1560 (10 December 2013)

The judge's failure to allow formal cross-examination of expert witnesses and to record key evidence constituted serious procedural irregularity, rendering the decisions on the Bank Strip and Triangle unjust and requiring remission for rehearing. The decision on the Swathe was upheld as the judge had a proper basis for his conclusion and no procedural unfairness affected that issue.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1560
Parties
Claimant/respondent: William Patrick Hatton; Claimant/respondent: Margaret Mary Hatton; Defendant/appellant: Peter Connew; Defendant/appellant: Iris Connew
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Expert Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Proprietary Estoppel, Rectification
Property Law Civil Procedure Boundary Disputes Expert Evidence Procedural Fairness Proprietary Estoppel Rectification

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Patrick Hatton

Claimant/respondent

Margaret Mary Hatton

Claimant/respondent

Peter Connew

Defendant/appellant

Iris Connew

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's handling of expert evidence constituted a serious procedural irregularity
  2. 2 Proper determination of the boundaries of three disputed parcels of land (Bank Strip, Triangle, Swathe)
  3. 3 Whether proprietary estoppel or rectification applied to the Swathe

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's failure to allow formal cross-examination of expert witnesses and to record key evidence constituted serious procedural irregularity, rendering the decisions on the Bank Strip and Triangle unjust and requiring remission for rehearing. The decision on the Swathe was upheld as the judge had a proper basis for his conclusion and no procedural unfairness affected that issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Claims regarding the Bank Strip and Triangle remitted for rehearing before a different judge
  • Appeal regarding the Swathe dismissed; judgment for claimants on this issue stands