Shaw v Grouby & Anor

Shaw v Grouby & Anor

The boundary was at the edge of the driveway as shown by physical features at the time of transfer, not the fence or stones. The claimant's wall did not trespass on the defendants' land. The right of way permitted access via the new entrance, not limited to the original point. The trial, while marked by excessive judicial intervention, was not unfair. The costs order was within the judge's discretion and not plainly wrong.

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 Whether the boundary between the parties' properties was at the edge of the driveway or along a fence/stone line
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's new wall constituted a trespass
  3. 3 Whether the right of way allowed access via a new entrance

Ratio Decidendi

The boundary was at the edge of the driveway as shown by physical features at the time of transfer, not the fence or stones. The claimant's wall did not trespass on the defendants' land. The right of way permitted access via the new entrance, not limited to the original point. The trial, while marked by excessive judicial intervention, was not unfair. The costs order was within the judge's discretion and not plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in full
  • Costs order of 95% in favour of the claimant upheld