Smith v Brough

Smith v Brough

The application for an extension of time for permission to appeal was refused due to an unprecedented and unjustified 39-month delay, lack of prompt action, and the public interest in finality of litigation. The grounds for appeal were available immediately after judgment, and the appellants failed to provide a good explanation for the delay. The respondents would be prejudiced by the absence of a transcript, and the judge's findings were not shown to be erroneous.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Patricia Renee Smith; Claimant/respondent: Barry Hutchinson; Defendant/applicant: Jean Brough; Defendant/applicant: Paul Danby Brough
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Appeal, Boundary Disputes, Estoppel, Boundary Agreements
Civil Procedure Property Law Extension of Time for Appeal Boundary Disputes Estoppel Boundary Agreements

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Renee Smith

Claimant/respondent

Barry Hutchinson

Claimant/respondent

Jean Brough

Defendant/applicant

Paul Danby Brough

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an extension of time for permission to appeal after a 39-month delay
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in finding a boundary agreement or estoppel
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time for permission to appeal was refused due to an unprecedented and unjustified 39-month delay, lack of prompt action, and the public interest in finality of litigation. The grounds for appeal were available immediately after judgment, and the appellants failed to provide a good explanation for the delay. The respondents would be prejudiced by the absence of a transcript, and the judge's findings were not shown to be erroneous.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Applicant to pay respondent's costs to be assessed if not agreed
  • Payment of £12,500 on account of costs within 14 days