Richardson & Anor v MacNab & Anor

Richardson & Anor v MacNab & Anor

Permission to appeal is granted only on the limited ground that, in light of the 25 April 2002 order declaring the boundary, the judge may have erred in finding that the fence remained on its legal boundary despite finding minimal movement due to settlement. All other grounds, including procedural unfairness, damages, costs, and fresh evidence, are refused as they lack merit or prospect of success.

Parties
Appellant: Peter Clive Richardson; Appellant: Valerie Mary Richardson; Respondent: Colin Wilkinson Macnab; Respondent: Sheila Margaret Macnab
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted on one limited ground; refused on all other grounds.
Legal Topics
Trespass, Boundary Disputes, Costs, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Appeal Procedure
Property Law Civil Procedure Trespass Boundary Disputes Costs Admission of Fresh Evidence Appeal Procedure

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

Parties

Peter Clive Richardson

Appellant

Valerie Mary Richardson

Appellant

Colin Wilkinson Macnab

Respondent

Sheila Margaret Macnab

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge made inconsistent findings regarding the movement of the boundary fence and trespass
  2. 2 Whether the Richardsons were justified in removing the fence based on alleged encroachment
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the handling of expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted only on the limited ground that, in light of the 25 April 2002 order declaring the boundary, the judge may have erred in finding that the fence remained on its legal boundary despite finding minimal movement due to settlement. All other grounds, including procedural unfairness, damages, costs, and fresh evidence, are refused as they lack merit or prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted on one limited ground; refused on all other grounds.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on the ground relating to the judge's findings on the fence's position and the 2002 order.
  • Permission to appeal refused on all other grounds.