Key Facts
- •Lee James Bootle (Claimant) owns land adjoining land owned by GHL Property Management and Development Limited (First Defendant) and FI Real Estate Management Limited (Second Defendant).
- •Dispute concerns the precise boundary between the properties, specifically the location relative to a ditch.
- •Defendants obtained planning permission to develop their land for warehousing.
- •Defendants commenced works, including tree removal, which Claimant alleges constituted trespass.
- •Claimant initially claimed ownership of the land south of the ditch, based on a surveyor's report.
- •Surveyor's report was later amended, changing the claimed boundary location.
- •Interim injunction application was initially granted by Judge Cadwallader, then reconsidered by HHJ Halliwell.
- •Defendants raised concerns about material non-disclosure by the Claimant.
Legal Principles
American Cyanamid test for interim injunctions.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
Landowner's prima facie entitlement to injunction to restrain trespass.
Patel v WH Smith [1987] 1 WLR 853
Duty of full and fair disclosure in applications for injunctive relief.
Mark Rich and Co Holding v Krasner [1999] CLY 487; Siporex Trade v Comdel Commodities [1986] 2 Lloyds Reports 428
Admissibility of expert evidence on boundary location.
Charlton v Forrest EWHC 1014(Ch); Tui UK Limited v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48
Interpretation of filed plans and registered titles.
Land Registration Act 2002, s.60(2); Land Registration Rules 1925, r.278
Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions).
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 1, Protocol 1
Outcomes
Interim injunction granted, but limited in scope.
Serious question to be tried regarding boundary location; inadequate remedy for claimant if injunction withheld in relation to undisputed land; balance of convenience favours defendants regarding disputed land.
Defendant's claim of material non-disclosure not determined at this stage.
Defendants' allegations need to be formally presented for proper response; best determined by Judge Cadwallader.
Judge Cadwallader's original order not set aside at this stage.
Separate issue from future relief; timeframe set for defendants to apply to set it aside.