Goodmans Autos Ltd v Maverstone Properties Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 1882 (KB) (21 July 2023)

Goodmans Autos Ltd v Maverstone Properties Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 1882 (KB) (21 July 2023)

The trial judge was entitled to find, based on expert evidence and trial pits, that the foundations, capping beam, and wall were constructed entirely within the Majestic House Site, and that any concrete overspill was either negligible or intended for fence support, not actionable trespass. The pleaded case of foundation trespass was not proven, and the alleged trespass by overspill was not within the pleaded case. The judge's findings were not plainly wrong and should not be disturbed on appeal.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1882 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Goodmans Autos Limited; Defendant/respondent: Maverstone Properties Limited; Defendant/respondent: Byoot Develop Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trespass, Boundary Disputes, Injunctions, Damages in Lieu, Party Wall Act
Property Law Civil Procedure Trespass Boundary Disputes Injunctions Damages in Lieu Party Wall Act

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goodmans Autos Limited

Claimant/appellant

Maverstone Properties Limited

Defendant/respondent

Byoot Develop Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the piled foundations and capping beam of Majestic House trespassed onto the GAL Site
  2. 2 Whether concrete overspill constituted actionable trespass
  3. 3 Whether GAL was entitled to mandatory injunction or damages in lieu

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to find, based on expert evidence and trial pits, that the foundations, capping beam, and wall were constructed entirely within the Majestic House Site, and that any concrete overspill was either negligible or intended for fence support, not actionable trespass. The pleaded case of foundation trespass was not proven, and the alleged trespass by overspill was not within the pleaded case. The judge's findings were not plainly wrong and should not be disturbed on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No injunction granted
  • No damages awarded