Wallace & Anor v Crossley & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1463 (02 November 2005)

Wallace & Anor v Crossley & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1463 (02 November 2005)

The applications for permission to appeal were refused because the trial judge's findings on nuisance, prescriptive rights, estoppel, damages, and costs were all properly open to him on the evidence and law, there was no procedural unfairness or bias, and the financial orders were justified by the Crossleys' means and conduct.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1463
Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Hon. Robin GH Wallace; Claimant/respondent: Mrs Jill A Wallace; Defendant/applicant: Mrs E Claire Crossley; Defendant/applicant: Mr Peter J Crossley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Easements, Trespass, Damages, Costs, Appeals, Statutory Nuisance, Prescription, Estoppel
Property Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Nuisance Easements Trespass Damages Costs +4 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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Hon. Robin GH Wallace

Claimant/respondent

Mrs Jill A Wallace

Claimant/respondent

Mrs E Claire Crossley

Defendant/applicant

Mr Peter J Crossley

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding nuisance by appearance and smell against the Crossleys
  2. 2 Whether the Crossleys had acquired a prescriptive right to commit a nuisance
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge was biased or conducted the trial unfairly

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for permission to appeal were refused because the trial judge's findings on nuisance, prescriptive rights, estoppel, damages, and costs were all properly open to him on the evidence and law, there was no procedural unfairness or bias, and the financial orders were justified by the Crossleys' means and conduct.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal against the order of 20th June 2005 refused
  • Permission to appeal against the strike out order of 1st September 2005 refused