Ceri James Charlton & Anor v Billy Forrest & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1014 (Ch)
Lee James Bootle v GHL Property Management and Development Limited & Anor
9 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2928 (Ch)
High Court
Two neighbours fought over where their property line was. One neighbour got a temporary court order stopping the other from building, but only in the part of the land that wasn't disputed. The court will decide later where the real line is and whether one neighbour hid important facts from the court.
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.
Similar Cases
Anthony Charles Clapham & Ors v Dee Narga
[2023] EWHC 3337 (Ch)
St Albans City and District Council v Anthony Hugh Taylerson & Ors
[2024] EWHC 602 (KB)
The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield v Charles Snell & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1206 (KB)
Stephen Pincus v Sandeep Singh Johal & Anor
[2024] EWHC 502 (Ch)