Louis v Laporte (CS 164/2011) [2018] SCSC 8293 (16 October 2018)

Louis v Laporte (CS 164/2011) [2018] SCSC 8293 (16 October 2018)

The plaintiff failed to plead and prove that the encroachment was within the rules of construction without breaking the law or that demolition would cause grave hardship; the encroachment was found to be deliberate, and the court cannot order sale or compensation in such circumstances. The counterclaim also failed for lack of material averments and proper pleading.

Citation
[2018] SCSC 8293
Parties
Plaintiff: Robinson Louis; Defendant: Dianna Laporte
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
16 October 2018
Case Number
CS 164/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaint and counterclaim dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Boundary Encroachment, Demolition Orders, Counterclaim Procedure
Source Language
English

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robinson Louis

Plaintiff

Dianna Laporte

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's building encroached on the defendant's land
  2. 2 Whether the encroachment was in good faith or a deliberate act
  3. 3 Whether the court should order demolition or allow compensation

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to plead and prove that the encroachment was within the rules of construction without breaking the law or that demolition would cause grave hardship; the encroachment was found to be deliberate, and the court cannot order sale or compensation in such circumstances. The counterclaim also failed for lack of material averments and proper pleading.

Court Disposition

Plaint and counterclaim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Plaint dismissed with costs.
  • Counterclaim dismissed.