The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow v David Frank Devere
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Morgan |
| Judgment Date | 08 October 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 2613 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CH-2017-000286 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 08 October 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 2613 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Mr Justice Morgan
Case No: CH-2017-000286
Mr Christopher Jacobs (instructed under the Bar Public Access Scheme) for the Appellants (apart from Mr DeVere)
Mr DeVere in person
Mr Gary Blaker QC (instructed by K & L Gates LLP) for the Respondent
Written submissions following judgment
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down
On 14 June 2018, I handed down judgment in this case. The neutral citation of that judgment is [2018] EWHC 1447 (Ch). That judgment was in relation to an appeal against the order dated 17 November 2017 made by His Honour Judge Wulwik sitting in the County Court at Central London.
On 30 July 2018, I heard submissions from the parties as to the form of the order which should be made to give effect to the conclusions reached in my judgment. On 31 July 2018, I made an order in the terms which I held to be appropriate. That order did not deal with issues as to the costs of the proceedings in the county court nor as to the costs of the appeal save that the order provided that those issues would be determined by the court following receipt by it of written submissions from the parties relating to costs.
I have now received written submissions from all parties and I have considered them. The Defendants (apart from DeVere) initially submitted that the right order was that there be no order for costs either as to the proceedings in the county court or as to the appeal. In their written submissions, the Defendants (apart from Mr DeVere) made further and alternative submissions as to the orders for costs which ought to be made. Mr DeVere also submitted that there should be no order for costs throughout. Hounslow submitted that it should recover 80% of its costs of the proceedings in the county court and of the appeal. In this judgment, I deal with the outstanding issues as to costs.
The nature of the dispute and the relevant facts are set out in my earlier judgment and I need not repeat those matters here. However, I do need to summarise some aspects of the dispute and the facts to the extent that they may be of importance for the purpose of determining the issues as to costs.
The Particulars of Claim referred to “the Claimant's Land” and “the River Works”. The first of these defined terms referred to land which was owned freehold by Hounslow although there was a dispute as to the boundaries of that land and, in particular, whether the river wall was included in the freehold title. The second of these defined terms referred to the rights of Hounslow under a licence dated 20 August 1996 granted by the Port of London Authority (“the PLA”). There was a dispute as to the nature of the rights granted to Hounslow in relation to the River Works and there was a possible distinction between the walkway and various piles and posts fixed in the bed of the river.
One of the complaints in the Particulars of Claim was that the Defendants had trespassed on the Claimant's Land in various respects. The alleged respects included the running of wires over the freehold land and attaching mooring lines to the Claimant's Land. Another complaint was that the Defendant had interfered with Hounslow's rights in relation to the River Works, principally by attaching mooring lines to the River Works.
In the Particulars of Claim, Hounslow sought orders to restrain the alleged wrongful acts in relation to the Claimant's Land and the River Works. If that relief had been granted, then the Defendants would have to stop mooring up against the Claimant's Land and would have to cast off all mooring lines from the Claimant's Land and the River Works. Hounslow wished to obtain orders which would mean that the Defendants would have to move their boats away from the area in which they had been previously moored. Hounslow wished to clear away the boats so that it could, in conjunction with the PLA, make an alternative use of the bank and the river bed in that area. The PLA was relevant to Hounslow's wishes because it owned the river bed in that area. However, the PLA was not a party to the claim. If it had been, some of the points which were later argued would probably not have mattered because it would seem likely that it would be held that the Defendants were interfering with the combined rights of Hounslow and the PLA. Accordingly, those two entities, acting together, could have obtained orders requiring the Defendants to move away from the area which Hounslow and the PLA wished to use for their own purposes. Nonetheless, the PLA was not a party to these proceedings and the court had to consider the rights of Hounslow alone.
The Defendants sought to resist Hounslow's claim by relying on a wide range of arguments. The width of those arguments can be seen by referring to the number of issues which Judge Wulwik dealt with in his judgment which he gave after a trial lasting 7 1/2 days. The matters he dealt with in his judgment were:
i) the facts;
ii) the effect of several sets of previous proceedings;
iii) a submission by Mr De Vere that the proceedings were an abuse of process;
iv) whether the river wall was part of Hounslow's freehold title;
v) a dispute as to the eastern boundary of the Claimant's Land;
vi) the effect of the licence in relation to the River Works and whether Hounslow was in possession of the River Works;
vii) the...
To continue reading
Request your trial