EWJ Dec 2023 - Journal - Page 78
Expert Evidence and Fine Margins in
Boundary Disputes – Goodmans Autos
Limited v Maverstone Properties
Limited [2023] EWHC 1882 (KB)
by Kort Egan - www.gatehouselaw.co.uk
Goodmans concerned an appeal brought by
Goodmans Autos Limited (“GAL”) on the basis that
the judge at first instance was wrong to dismiss its
claim against Maverstone Properties Limited (“MPL”)
and Byoot Develop Limited (“BDL”) for:
1. Damages for trespass to its premises by excavating
approximately 6 inches of the GAL Site and removing
concrete fence posts on the land and;
2. For an injunction requiring the Defendants to
remedy the trespass to its premises caused by concrete
poured for the foundations of a building erected by
the Defendants flowing over into the excavated space
and therefore into the GAL Site.
Mr Justice Murray dismissed the appeal. The case
highlights the need to extensively scrutinise expert evidence before pleading a case and before collecting
witness evidence in boundary disputes that often
involve fine margins.
Relevant facts
GAL is the owner of a site (“the GAL Site”) and
operated its business of repairing and servicing etc.
motor vehicles from premises on the GAL Site. MPL
is the freehold owner and developer of a site known
as Majestic House (“the Majestic House Site”). The
Majestic House Site is contiguous to the GAL Site.
BDL is the contractor engaged by MPL to carry out
the development of the Majestic House Site.
Whilst the development of Majestic House was being
carried out, a fence on the GAL Site that had run
along the line of the boundary with the Majestic
House Site was taken down by JJ Waste, a sub-contractor of BDL, by agreement with GAL. In due
course, a replacement fence was erected by GAL, although on GAL’s case it was forced to construct the
fence further into its own site than it should have had
to do, due to the manner and extent of the excavation on the Majestic House Site, which GAL alleged
had involved removing up to six inches (about 150
mm) of earth from the GAL Site.
GAL’s Amended Particulars of Claim (“the APOC”)
alleged that the Defendants removed approximately
6 inches of GAL’s land including many of the concrete
fence posts and that the method of supporting the replacement fence required the Claimant to lose the use
of four parking spaces within the Claimant’s premises
which in turn reduced the volume of cars that the
Claimant could repair/service. GAL also pleaded that,
“The piled foundations extend underneath the
Claimant’s Premises and, if the rear wall of the building is built on the capping beam as constructed, the
rear wall itself is likely to extend onto the Claimants
[sic] Premises.”
GAL alleged that the presence of the foundations on
its premises amounted to a trespass and that it was
MBL’s intention to build the rear wall of the Development on the capping beam which would also amount
to a trespass.