Shaw v Grouby & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 233 (06 April 2017)

Shaw v Grouby & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 233 (06 April 2017)

The boundary between the properties is the edge of the asphalt driveway as it existed at the date of the transfer, not the line of the fence or stones. The right of way permits access to the property via any point as necessary, not limited to the original access. The judge's interventions, while excessive, did not render the trial unfair. The costs order was within the judge's discretion and reflected the substantive outcome.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 233
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Karen Shaw; Defendant/appellant: Peter David Grouby; Defendant/appellant: Claude Anthony Francis Barkham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Easements and Rights of Way, Procedural Fairness, Costs Orders
Property Law Civil Procedure Boundary Disputes Easements and Rights of Way 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Shaw

Claimant/respondent

Peter David Grouby

Defendant/appellant

Claude Anthony Francis Barkham

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct boundary between the claimant's and defendants' properties?
  2. 2 Does the right of way permit access to every part of the dominant tenement or only the original access point?
  3. 3 Did the judge's conduct of the trial amount to procedural unfairness?

Ratio Decidendi

The boundary between the properties is the edge of the asphalt driveway as it existed at the date of the transfer, not the line of the fence or stones. The right of way permits access to the property via any point as necessary, not limited to the original access. The judge's interventions, while excessive, did not render the trial unfair. The costs order was within the judge's discretion and reflected the substantive outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed on all grounds.
  • The boundary is as shown on the plan attached to the order of 15 January 2016, following the edge of the driveway.