Bootle v GHl Property Management And Development Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 2928 (Ch) (09 September 2024)

Bootle v GHl Property Management And Development Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 2928 (Ch) (09 September 2024)

There is a serious question to be tried as to the precise position of the boundary between the parties' properties. The Claimant is prima facie entitled to an injunction restraining trespass on land to the north of the boundary shown on the filed plan, which the Defendants do not dispute. However, for land to the south of this line, the balance of convenience favours the Defendants due to the commercial risks and complexity of compensating them under the Claimant's cross-undertaking. Damages are an adequate remedy for the Claimant in respect of the southern disputed land, which is of limited intrinsic value. The Claimant's expert evidence is admitted for the purpose of this application,...

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2928 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Lee James Bootle; First Defendant: GHL Property Management and Development Limited; Second Defendant: FI Real Estate Management Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application in Part 7 Proceedings / Judgment on Application for Interim Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in part; refused in part
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Trespass, Interim Injunctions, Land Registration, Disclosure Obligations
Property Law Civil Procedure Boundary Disputes Trespass Interim Injunctions Land Registration Disclosure Obligations

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee James Bootle

Claimant

GHL Property Management and Development Limited

First Defendant

FI Real Estate Management Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application in Part 7 Proceedings / Judgment on Application for Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from entering or performing works on disputed land
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious question to be tried as to the position of the boundary between the parties' properties
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the Claimant if injunctive relief is withheld

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious question to be tried as to the precise position of the boundary between the parties' properties. The Claimant is prima facie entitled to an injunction restraining trespass on land to the north of the boundary shown on the filed plan, which the Defendants do not dispute. However, for land to the south of this line, the balance of convenience favours the Defendants due to the commercial risks and complexity of compensating them under the Claimant's cross-undertaking. Damages are an adequate remedy for the Claimant in respect of the southern disputed land, which is of limited intrinsic value. The Claimant's expert evidence is admitted for the purpose of this application,...

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in part; refused in part

Orders

  • Defendants are restrained from entering or performing works on land to the north of the southernmost blue line on Plan A (the boundary not in dispute) pending trial or further order.
  • Application for interim injunction in respect of land to the south of the blue line is refused.