Nata Lee Ltd v Abid & Anor

Nata Lee Ltd v Abid & Anor

The respondents did not acquire title to the disputed land by boundary agreement or adverse possession; the trial judge erred in her legal analysis and in excluding key factual evidence. Trespass and interference claims relating to the disputed land fail. The encroachment and temporary interference claims require retrial due to evidentiary errors. The only actionable interference upheld is the narrowing of the gateway, which significantly affected the right of way.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Nata Lee Ltd; Respondents/claimants: Mr. and Mrs. Abid
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Liability Only Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; retrial ordered on specific issues; appeal dismissed in part.
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Adverse Possession, Trespass, Right of Way, Case Management, Evidentiary Rulings
Property Law Civil Procedure Boundary Disputes Adverse Possession Trespass Right of Way Case Management Evidentiary Rulings

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nata Lee Ltd

Appellant/defendant

Mr. and Mrs. Abid

Respondents/claimants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Liability Only Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents acquired title to disputed land by boundary agreement or adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether the appellant trespassed by encroachment, use of a doorway, foundations, or drainage works
  3. 3 Whether there was actionable interference with a right of way by narrowing the yard or gateway, or by temporary obstructions

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents did not acquire title to the disputed land by boundary agreement or adverse possession; the trial judge erred in her legal analysis and in excluding key factual evidence. Trespass and interference claims relating to the disputed land fail. The encroachment and temporary interference claims require retrial due to evidentiary errors. The only actionable interference upheld is the narrowing of the gateway, which significantly affected the right of way.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; retrial ordered on specific issues; appeal dismissed in part.

Orders

  • Declaration that disputed land remains part of No. 99 (Nata Lee)
  • Retrial ordered on extent of encroachment by building and foundations into Abids’ yard