Lee James Bootle v GHL Property Management and Development Limited & Anor

Where registered title is undisputed, the owner is prima facie entitled to an injunction restraining trespass, without applying the balance-of-convenience test. A Land Registry general boundary does not determine the precise boundary line. Where the precise line is genuinely disputed, interim relief is governed by the American Cyanamid principles, including adequacy of damages, the cross-undertaking and the balance of convenience. Expert evidence in a boundary dispute is admissible to the extent that it provides specialist surveying or historical plan knowledge beyond ordinary judicial expertise; the expert’s conclusion on the legal boundary remains for the court.

The claimant sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants from entering land adjoining his property and carrying out development works. The dispute concerned the precise boundary, which was marked only as a general boundary on the registered title plans. The claimant relied on changing expert evidence concerning a ditch, historic fences, hedges and survey plans. The defendants challenged the expert evidence and opposed relief on the basis that the balance of convenience favoured continuation of their commercial development. They also raised alleged material non-disclosure in connection with an earlier short-notice application.

The central issues were the admissibility of the expert reports, the existence of a serious question to be tried, the proper approach to land whose ownership was undisputed, and the application of the American Cyanamid principles to the disputed strip.

1. Expert evidence. An expert may give evidence on specialist surveying practice, historic methods of preparing plans, symbols and mereing where that knowledge lies beyond ordinary judicial expertise. The expert’s changing conclusions were a matter affecting weight and credibility, to be tested at trial, rather than a sufficient reason to exclude the reports at the interim stage. Permission was granted under CPR rule 35.4(1).
2. Boundary. A Land Registry general boundary does not determine the exact line. The filed plan was nevertheless significant evidence of a historic physical feature north of the ditch. The claimant established a serious question to be tried, although the defendants had a good arguable case that the precise boundary was substantially north of the line initially advanced.
3. Undisputed land. In relation to land north of the southernmost blue line on the plan, the defendants did not dispute the claimant’s title. Applying Patel v WH Smith [1987] 1 WLR 853, the claimant was prima facie entitled to an injunction restraining trespass, without resort to the remaining American Cyanamid factors.
4. Disputed land. For the land south of that line, there was a serious issue as to title and trespass. Damages were potentially adequate for the claimant, whose interest in the strip had limited intrinsic and amenity value and who retained a possible claim for restitutionary damages under Attorney General v Blake [2000] UKHL 45. The defendants’ potential commercial losses and the complexity of accommodating an injunction meant that the balance of convenience favoured them.
5. Non-disclosure. The court declined to determine the defendants’ allegations at this stage. Any application to set aside the earlier order had to identify each allegation comprehensively and be supported by a transcript of the earlier hearing.

An injunction was granted only in respect of land north of the blue line. No injunction was granted over the disputed land south of that line.

The judgment records an earlier interim order made by HHJ Cadwallader at Manchester on 22 August 2024. This judgment replaced the practical effect of that order for future relief by granting a narrower injunction limited to land north of the blue line. The issue whether the earlier order should be set aside for material non-disclosure was left for any separate application.