Thorne v Courtier & Ors

Thorne v Courtier & Ors

The settlement agreement, construed objectively in the context of the pleadings and correspondence, limited damages for trespass to damages for use and occupation (mesne profits) only. The court, not the expert, had jurisdiction to determine the meaning of the agreement. There was no issue estoppel or abuse of process as the meaning of the agreement was not previously determined or required to be determined.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Diana Marian Thorne; Defendant/respondent: Clifford George Courtier; Defendant/respondent: Enid Mary Courtier; Defendant/respondent: Julian Clifford Courtier
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreements, Interpretation of Contracts, Damages for Trespass, Expert Determination, Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Costs
Civil Procedure Contract Law Land Law Settlement Agreements Interpretation of Contracts Damages for Trespass Expert Determination Issue Estoppel +2 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diana Marian Thorne

Claimant/appellant

Clifford George Courtier

Defendant/respondent

Enid Mary Courtier

Defendant/respondent

Julian Clifford Courtier

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement allowed for damages at large or was limited to damages for use and occupation (mesne profits)
  2. 2 Whether the meaning of 'damages for trespass' was for the expert or the court to determine
  3. 3 Whether issue estoppel or abuse of process prevented the defendants from arguing for a limited construction of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The settlement agreement, construed objectively in the context of the pleadings and correspondence, limited damages for trespass to damages for use and occupation (mesne profits) only. The court, not the expert, had jurisdiction to determine the meaning of the agreement. There was no issue estoppel or abuse of process as the meaning of the agreement was not previously determined or required to be determined.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs order of the Recorder upheld: claimant to pay two thirds of defendants’ costs up to and including 15 December 2009 and the whole of their costs thereafter