Centaur Property Estates Limited & Anor v Larry Thornton Scott & Ors

At a consequential hearing, the court should give effect to the appellate conclusions already reached and should not entertain new grounds which were not pursued in the substantive appeal without permission to amend. Equitable relief should reflect the parties’ agreement and the findings supporting the equity. Additional limitations should not be imposed merely to address speculative future misuse where they risk creating further disputes. Costs may be allocated by distinct issues where separate claims succeeded and failed, and proportional allocation is impracticable.

The judgment concerned the form of order following the court’s earlier determination of appeals arising from a neighbour dispute. In the principal judgment, Centaur’s appeal had succeeded on the form of relief for a right of way by estoppel, while the Defendants’ cross-appeal had succeeded in part and failed in part. The parties then filed competing orders and advanced further arguments about the scope and legal character of parking and access rights. The court also had to determine the consequential costs order.

1. Disposition. The court allowed the Defendants’ cross-appeal against the declaration in paragraph 1 of the December Order, dismissed their appeal against paragraphs 2 and 3, and upheld Centaur’s entitlement to a right of way by estoppel. Centaur’s appeal was allowed because the relief should have granted an unconditional right of way. The court therefore made the sealed consequential order.
2. The court refused to limit the Defendants’ parking right on grounds raised for the first time at the consequential hearing. The Defendants should have sought permission to amend their Grounds of Appeal and advanced those points at the substantive hearing. It was unnecessary to determine whether the parking right was capable of taking effect as an easement because its scope had not been challenged in the December Order. Nevertheless, the Judge had been entitled to require Centaur to grant the right as part of satisfying the equity.
3. The parking right was made exclusive. Centaur’s right of way was not limited to business hours or business use. The relief had to reflect the agreement found by the trial Judge, and further qualifications risked generating fresh litigation. Centaur could extend the right to Mr Blackman and to the occupier for the time being of No 84 Lee High Road.
4. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 44.2, a proportionate costs order should be considered before an order relating to a distinct part. Here, the separate outcomes of the claims and the absence of a reliable breakdown made an issues-based order appropriate. Mr Blackman bore the ordinary costs consequences of his failed claim, and no payment on account was ordered because the recoverable amount could not be assessed reliably.

• High Court, Chancery Appeals. The substantive appeals were determined in the principal judgment, [2023] EWHC 2712 (Ch). The present judgment settled the consequential order and costs.
• Central London County Court. The trial Judge gave the First, Second and Third Judgments and made the December Order. The High Court varied the relief and dealt with the consequences of the appeals.