YADEVINDER SINGH HOTHI v CLIVE STOKES

In a boundary dispute, conveyancing plans are important evidence but do not automatically determine the precise boundary. Their weight depends on their quality and on the other available evidence, including long-standing physical features. An appellate court should not interfere with factual or evaluative findings, or case-management decisions, absent a material error of principle or an unreasonable conclusion.

Exemplary damages under the profit-based category require deliberate calculation in cynical disregard of the claimant’s rights. The category is not confined to strict financial profit, but reprehensible conduct alone is insufficient.

The Defendant appealed from an order made after a boundary dispute trial in the County Court at Reading, sitting at Oxford. The first-instance judge declared the boundary between the parties’ properties, awarded the Claimant £420 compensatory damages, dismissed the counterclaim and refused exemplary damages.

The appeal challenged the location of the boundary, the judge’s post-judgment clarification of the declaration, alleged reliance on adverse possession, and the restriction of a witness’s evidence. The Claimant cross-appealed against the refusal of exemplary damages. The central issues were whether the first-instance findings were inconsistent or impermissibly altered, whether the evidential ruling justified appellate intervention, and whether the conduct satisfied the legal requirements for exemplary damages.

1. Appeal and cross appeal dismissed. Permission to appeal was granted on Grounds One to Three and refused on Ground Four. Permission was granted for the Cross Appeal. The Defendant’s appellant’s notice was extended to 31 August 2021.
2. The first-instance judge was entitled to find that the historical Ivy Fence and the 2008 Fence marked the same boundary line, and that the eastern face of the 2008 Post identified the southern end of the true boundary. Those findings were not inconsistent with the finding that the Brick Wall had been built within No. 5. They could be reconciled by a small kink in the boundary.
3. Conveyancing plans do not enjoy automatic priority over other evidence in a boundary dispute. Plans may be unsuitable for identifying precise boundaries because of scale, line thickness, purpose and wording. The weight of each plan depends on its quality and on the other evidence. The relevant plans did not establish that the boundary was incapable of containing a small kink or that a later physical boundary could not have developed one. This approach was consistent with Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley [1999] 1 WLR 894.
4. The draft order was not binding on the first-instance judge. Before the order was made and sealed, the judge could amend the judgment and declaration so that they reflected his findings. No finding of acquisition by adverse possession had been made, so the appeal ground based on the absence of a pleaded adverse-possession case did not arise.
5. The restriction of Pamela Engels’s evidence was a case-management decision made after relief from sanction had been granted on a defined condition. The appellate court should interfere only for an error of principle, consideration of an irrelevant matter, failure to consider a relevant matter, or a decision no reasonable judge could reach. No such error was shown, and the excluded photographs would not have materially affected the outcome.
6. The profit-based category of exemplary damages is not confined to strict financial calculation. It extends to deliberate conduct intended to secure an object at the claimant’s expense where the defendant considers that lawful acquisition would be too costly or unavailable. This was explained in Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 and Broome v Cassell & Co. [1972] AC 1027. Nevertheless, the first-instance judge had not misdirected himself. His findings showed reprehensible conduct, but not the necessary calculation in cynical disregard of the Claimant’s rights. The appellate court could not supply missing factual findings or substitute its own evaluation.

• Chancery Appeals (ChD): Appeal from the order of His Honour Judge Rochford dated 9 December 2021 in the County Court at Reading, sitting in the County Court at Oxford. Permission was granted on Grounds One to Three and refused on Ground Four. The appeal was dismissed. The cross appeal was dismissed.
• County Court at Reading: Judgment for the Claimant for £420 compensatory damages; declaration as to the boundary; counterclaim dismissed; exemplary damages refused.