Lewis & Ors v Cottrill [2004] EWCA Civ 1245 (22 July 2004)
The trial judge's findings of fact regarding adverse possession and boundary location were not plainly wrong, and no grounds were shown for appellate interference. Exclusion of evidence and alleged procedural errors did not affect the outcome.
- Citation
- [2004] EWCA Civ 1245
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: Mrs M Lewis; Claimant/respondent: Mr G R Green; Claimant/respondent: Mr C D Lewis; Defendant/applicant: Mr Phillip John Cottrill
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 22 July 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Permission to Appeal / Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Post Trial
- Outcome
- Application for permission to appeal refused; extension of time refused; stay refused.
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Boundary Disputes, Appeals, Case Management
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mrs M Lewis
Claimant/respondent
Mr G R Green
Claimant/respondent
Mr C D Lewis
Claimant/respondent
Mr Phillip John Cottrill
Defendant/applicant
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal / Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Post Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding adverse possession by the respondents
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred in determining the boundary between the properties
- 3 Whether the trial judge improperly excluded evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge's findings of fact regarding adverse possession and boundary location were not plainly wrong, and no grounds were shown for appellate interference. Exclusion of evidence and alleged procedural errors did not affect the outcome.
Court Disposition
Application for permission to appeal refused; extension of time refused; stay refused.
Orders
- Application for permission to appeal refused
- Application for extension of time refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment