Buxton v MJ Hillson and Associates & Anor

A final judgment cannot ordinarily be reopened through fresh proceedings merely because a party considers it wrong or unfair. A judgment may be challenged for fraud only where the alleged fraud is proved by fresh evidence which was unavailable, and could not reasonably have been discovered, before judgment. The judgment binds the original parties and their privies, including a subsequent purchaser acquiring the same interest after judgment. Repeated litigation of issues already determined, after the available appeals have failed, is an abuse of process. An interim mandatory injunction is exceptional and requires a high degree of assurance that it will be justified at trial. Even if that threshold is met, the court must consider whether damages are an adequate remedy and weigh the practical consequences of demolition.

The claimant sought an interim mandatory injunction requiring the demolition of four houses built on land which he said belonged to him or was subject to his option to purchase. His case depended on challenging a 1994 Milton Keynes County Court judgment declaring the boundaries of his property and ordering the removal of encroaching structures.

The claimant’s appeal had been dismissed by the Court of Appeal, and permission to petition the House of Lords had been refused. The adjoining land was subsequently transferred to the second defendant, a housing association, which argued that it was a privy of the earlier judgment and that the present proceedings were an abuse of process.

The issues were whether the earlier judgment remained binding, whether it could be impugned for fraud, whether the option to purchase remained effective, and whether a mandatory injunction should be granted.

1. Application dismissed and claim struck out. The claimant was bound by the earlier declaration of the boundaries. The present proceedings sought to re-litigate issues which had already been determined and unsuccessfully appealed.
2. The earlier judgment was final, was given on the merits and was made by a court with jurisdiction. The refusal of an adjournment did not prevent finality once that issue had been unsuccessfully pursued on appeal.
3. A judgment capable of founding an estoppel may be impugned for fraud, but the unsuccessful party must prove the fraud by fresh evidence which was unavailable, and could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered, before judgment. The claimant relied on evidence and inferences which had already been considered and rejected. No fresh evidence was produced.
4. The earlier judgment bound not only the original parties but also their privies. Applying Wiltshire v Powell & others [2004] EWCA Civ 534, a privy included a purchaser acquiring the same title or interest after the earlier judgment. The second defendant therefore acquired the relevant land subject to the declaration.
5. The repeated re-litigation of the same issues, after all avenues of appeal had been exhausted, constituted an abuse of process. The court would have reached the same conclusion under CPR 3.4 if necessary.
6. The option to purchase the triangular area of land required completion by conveyance within the specified period. The claimant had not acquired the land by conveyance and, having declined to do so because he disagreed with the declared boundaries, the option had lapsed.
7. The court considered the proposed mandatory injunction in any event. Such an interim injunction would be granted only in exceptional circumstances and where there was a high degree of assurance that it would be justified at trial. That threshold was not met. Further, damages would have been an adequate remedy, and demolition of affordable housing costing approximately £500,000 would cause substantial loss.

• Court of Appeal: dismissed the claimant’s appeal from the 1994 Milton Keynes County Court judgment on 16 November 1995.
• Appellate Committee of the House of Lords: dismissed the claimant’s application for leave to present a petition on 19 December 1996.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): dismissed the interim injunction application and struck out the claim as an abuse of process.