Boas & Ors v Aventure International Ltd

Boas & Ors v Aventure International Ltd

The trial judge failed to appreciate the significance of the June 2000 photograph, which clearly showed the original boundary fence further back towards the respondent's property than the 2014 fence. The judge's conclusion that the photograph was not determinative was plainly wrong. The appeal court, having reviewed the photographic and documentary evidence, finds that the true boundary is marked by the line of the original fence as shown in the June 2000 photograph, coinciding with the 2004 fence, and not the 2014 fence.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Barry Boas; Claimant/appellant: Denise Boas; Claimant/appellant: Andrew Richard Boas; Defendant/respondent: Aventure International Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Trespass, Conveyancing, Appeals, Burden of Proof
Property Law Civil Procedure Boundary Disputes Trespass Conveyancing Appeals Burden of Proof

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Boas

Claimant/appellant

Denise Boas

Claimant/appellant

Andrew Richard Boas

Claimant/appellant

Aventure International Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the true boundary between the parties' freehold properties?
  2. 2 Did the respondent trespass onto the appellants' land by erecting a new fence in 2014?
  3. 3 Should the trial judge's findings of fact be overturned on appeal?

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge failed to appreciate the significance of the June 2000 photograph, which clearly showed the original boundary fence further back towards the respondent's property than the 2014 fence. The judge's conclusion that the photograph was not determinative was plainly wrong. The appeal court, having reviewed the photographic and documentary evidence, finds that the true boundary is marked by the line of the original fence as shown in the June 2000 photograph, coinciding with the 2004 fence, and not the 2014 fence.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the boundary between the parties' land is marked by the line of the original fence as shown in the June 2000 photograph, coinciding with the 2004 fence.
  • Respondent to restore the boundary fence to its original position.