Gary David Harry Hambling & Anor v Garry Lawrence Wakerly & Anor
[2023] EWHC 343 (Ch)
Test for granting permission to appeal: real prospect of success or compelling reason.
CPR 52.6
Appeal court reviews lower court decisions, allowing appeals if decisions were wrong or unjust due to procedural irregularities.
CPR 52.21
Construction of court orders should consider the language used and relevant circumstances known to the court and parties; judgments' reasons are admissible when construing the order.
SDI Retail Services Ltd v The Rangers Football Club Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 790 at [44]
Dominant owner of a right of way can maintain and repair, entering servient owner's land for necessary work in a reasonable manner.
Carter v Cole [2006] EWCA Civ 398 at [8]
Grant of easement includes ancillary rights reasonably necessary for its exercise or enjoyment.
Jones v Pritchard [1908] Ch 630 at 638
In costs appeals, the court distinguishes between errors of law and unjust discretionary decisions; intervention only occurs if the discretion exceeded reasonable disagreement.
AEI Rediffusion Music v PPL [1999] 1 WLR 1507, Islam v Ali [2003] EWCA Civ 612, Tanfern v Cameron-MacDonald [2000] 1 WLR 1311
For non-money claims, CPR 36.17(1)(b) requires a comparison of whether the judgment was broadly more advantageous than the offer; a wide-ranging review of facts and circumstances is permitted.
Re Lehman Brothers International [2022] EWHC 3366 (Ch), Carver v BAA Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 412
CPR 36.17(4) orders are made unless unjust; the objective is to encourage good practice and incentivize offers, potentially leading to non-compensatory awards.
McPhilemy v The Times Newspapers No. 2 [2001] EWCA Civ 933, OMV Petrom SA v Glencor International AG [2017] 1 W.L.R. 3465, PGF II SA v OMFS Company I Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 1288
Claimants' appeals dismissed.
Grounds of appeal regarding the right to repair were unarguable, based on misinterpretations of the judge's findings and the distinction between repair and improvement. The defendant's arguable ground concerning embankment repair was dismissed because the judge's decision was reasonable and practical given the track's nature and the ancillary right to repair to allow the easement's enjoyment.
Defendant's appeals dismissed.
Arguments that the judge's costs decision was wrong were rejected. The judge's approach was reasonable and within the bounds of discretion, considering all relevant factors (injunction, costs, and the overall fairness of applying CPR 36.17(4) consequences).
[2023] EWHC 343 (Ch)
[2023] EWHC 3200 (Ch)
[2024] UKPC 4
[2024] EWHC 127 (Ch)
[2023] EWHC 1200 (Ch)