C-Vanci & Ors v Edwards & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1177 (15 July 2002)

C-Vanci & Ors v Edwards & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1177 (15 July 2002)

The claimants failed to establish a real prospect of success on appeal because the trial judge's findings on credibility and possession were not undermined by the new evidence, which did not satisfy the requirements for admission post-trial and would not have affected the outcome. The correspondence relied upon did...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1177
Parties
Claimant: Eduardo C-Vanci; Claimant: Christine E J North; Defendant: Barry Roy Edwards; Defendant: Irene Liesbeth Edwards; Defendant: Liesbeth Gertrude Robinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Related Applications
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Extension of Time, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Appeal Procedure
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Extension of Time Admission of Fresh Evidence Appeal Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eduardo C-Vanci

Claimant

Christine E J North

Claimant

Barry Roy Edwards

Defendant

Irene Liesbeth Edwards

Defendant

Liesbeth Gertrude Robinson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants had acquired title to the disputed strip of land by adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether new evidence (Farrells' statements) should be admitted post-trial
  3. 3 Whether an extension of time for appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish a real prospect of success on appeal because the trial judge's findings on credibility and possession were not undermined by the new evidence, which did not satisfy the requirements for admission post-trial and would not have affected the outcome. The correspondence relied upon did not support the claimants' case for adverse possession. Extension of time and permission to appeal were refused.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Refusal of extension of time for appeal
  • Refusal of permission to appeal