Challenger & Anor v Watkins & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 281 (30 January 2002)

Challenger & Anor v Watkins & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 281 (30 January 2002)

The claimants were the successful party on both the right of way and the obligation to contribute to repair. The judge erred in principle by not awarding the claimants their costs, as the defendants did not concede the right of way until late and the claimants improved their position beyond the Part 36 offer. The claimants' conduct was not unreasonable, and the judge's order on costs was set aside.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 281
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Peter Robert Challenger; Claimant/appellant: Sheelagh Challenger; Defendant/respondent: Michael John Watkins; Defendant/respondent: Jennifer Lynne Watkins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Administrative Court List) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Costs, Easements, Civil Procedure Rules, Part 36 Offers
Property Law Civil Procedure Right of Way Costs Easements Civil Procedure Rules Part 36 Offers

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Robert Challenger

Claimant/appellant

Sheelagh Challenger

Claimant/appellant

Michael John Watkins

Defendant/respondent

Jennifer Lynne Watkins

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Administrative Court List) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants were under an obligation to contribute to the repair of a right of way
  2. 2 Whether the claimants were entitled to costs of the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants were the successful party on both the right of way and the obligation to contribute to repair. The judge erred in principle by not awarding the claimants their costs, as the defendants did not concede the right of way until late and the claimants improved their position beyond the Part 36 offer. The claimants' conduct was not unreasonable, and the judge's order on costs was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Claimants awarded costs of the appeal and of the action, subject to detailed assessment