Wildblood v Naveen & Anor

On an application for leave to appeal in a neighbour dispute, the Court of Appeal will not revisit primary findings of fact where the trial judge heard the evidence, considered photographs and inspected the property. Nominal damages will not be disturbed where no error in the award is shown. A costs order made in the trial judge’s discretion will not be interfered with unless the judge erred in principle. A challenge to costs as unreasonably or improperly incurred may be raised on taxation. An application disclosing no arguable error of fact or law should be dismissed.

Following a six-day trial in Sheffield County Court, His Honour Judge Bullimore dismissed most of the applicant’s claims concerning boundary trespass, nuisance, drainage, access, damage and related matters. He awarded the applicant £1 nominal damages for damage to a hawthorn and a technical trespass involving a lintel. The defendants obtained two equivalent nominal awards and an injunction restraining harassment, entry and obstruction of access. The judge ordered the applicant to pay the defendants’ costs. The applicant applied for leave to appeal, challenging the factual findings, the nominal damages, the injunction and the costs order.

Stuart-Smith LJ, with Mummery LJ agreeing, dismissed the application.

1. The County Court judge had heard the evidence, considered photographs and inspected the property. The complaints about boundary, trespass, nuisance, access and damage raised no arguable error in the primary facts. The Court of Appeal would not interfere with those findings; photographs could be misleading.
2. There was no basis to interfere with the awards of £1 nominal damages for the hawthorn damage and the technical trespass involving the lintel. The equivalent nominal awards on the defendants’ counterclaim cancelled each other out. The injunction was also based on factual findings, and no arguable error of law was established.
3. The costs order was within the trial judge’s discretion. Although the applicant had succeeded on two matters, the judge was entitled to decline to make discrete issue-based orders. The Court of Appeal would not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless an error of principle were shown, and no such error was present.
4. The court added that the costs order covered only costs reasonably and properly incurred. Any complaint that costs relating to confidential-information matters were not reasonably or properly incurred could be raised on taxation.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for leave to appeal against the judgment of Sheffield County Court, given by His Honour Judge Bullimore on 19 December 1997. Application dismissed.