|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Taylor & Anor v Lawrence & Anor  EWCA Civ 119 (25 January 2001)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 119
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM WATFORD COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Peter Goldstone)
Thursday, 25th January 2001
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK
LORD JUSTICE KEENE
|(1) RICHARD MARK TAYLOR|
|(2) KIM PRISCILLA TAYLOR|
|- v -|
|(1) JOSEPH DWIGHT LAWRENCE|
|(2) RUTH AMANDA LAWRENCE|
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 0171 421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR TIM COWEN (Instructed by Messrs Matthew Arnold & Baldwin, 20 Station Road, Watford, Herts. WD1 1HT)
appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Crown Copyright ©
Thursday 25th January 2001
(1)In 1962 Mr Griffiths levelled that part of his garden adjacent to the boundary with Highgate, laid concrete on it and built the plinth when making the car port and constructed small posts at the edge of the concrete to support the car port.
(2)Mr Moore, knowing what Mr Griffiths was about to do, erected a fence as a screen on a line inside the boundary of Highgate.
(3)Mr Moore was not bothered by what Mr Griffiths did as that was taking place behind, that is to say on the far side of, his screen. He abandoned interest in the area proximate to the boundary at this point and was content for Mr Griffiths to occupy it if he was so minded.
(4)Mr Griffiths' son, Charles, who was about 17 at the time of the concreting, helped his father, as did his 15 year old brother Richard, with the concreting work. It was Charles Griffiths' belief that the plinth was within the boundary of Cetlas.
(5)The concreted area, including the plinth, was used for car parking by the claimants' predecessors in title.
"He spoke to nobody who had any connection with the case he was hearing, and he has given me his absolute assurance that at no point has he discussed your case, or indeed any case whilst he has been hearing it, with the solicitors."
"85....the Court must first ascertain all the circumstances which have a bearing on the suggestion that the Judge was biased. It must then ask whether those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, the two being the same, that the tribunal was biased.