Bradley & Anor v Heslin & Anor

A declaration of legal rights should state the rights declared. Practical observations intended to guide reasonable conduct should not be converted into a detailed legal rulebook. An injunction is discretionary and should be granted only where necessary in the interests of justice. In costs matters, the court must identify the successful party and apply the general rule subject to the justice of the individual case. A party may succeed overall while recovering only part of its costs where it sought more than it achieved and the opposing party made serious efforts to settle.

The judgment addressed the form of the declaration and consequential orders following a boundary dispute concerning ownership and operation of gates. The claimants established ownership of the gates and supporting pillars and obtained a declaration of a right to close the gates, but they did not obtain the unrestricted right or permanent injunction sought. The court had to determine the wording of the declaration, whether injunctive relief was necessary, and the appropriate costs order.

1. The declaration was confined to the legal rights declared in the earlier judgment. Observations intended to guide the parties’ conduct were not incorporated as additional times or qualifications. The parties were expected to work out the practical operation of the right as reasonable neighbours in changing circumstances.

2. An injunction is a discretionary remedy. It should be granted only where the court is persuaded that it is necessary in the interests of justice. No injunction was necessary because the defendants had removed the lock and it appeared that they would not obstruct the normal operation of the gates. That position was recorded by recital in the order.

3. The claimants were the successful party for the purposes of the general rule in CPR Part 44. They succeeded on the central dispute concerning the existence of a right to close the gates and on ownership of the gates and pillars. Their failure to obtain the full breadth of the right sought, together with the defendants’ serious attempts to negotiate a pragmatic solution, justified a different order in the interests of justice.

4. The defendants were therefore ordered to pay 50 per cent of the claimants’ costs. The court distinguished questions relevant to liability for costs from questions relevant to assessment. The reasonableness and proportionality of costs incurred would be determined on assessment.

5. The claimants’ settlement offer did not provide an appropriate basis for indemnity costs because it sought acknowledgement of an unrestricted right, whereas the trial outcome did not grant that right. The 50 per cent of costs was accordingly payable on the standard basis throughout, subject to assessment in default of agreement.