000			01839cab a2200193 4500
001			L129664
008			050509n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129664
041			_aeng
245			_aScammell and others v Dicker
260			_c2005
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2005] 42 EG 236-242(7)
520			_a[2005] EWCA Civ 205, 14 April 2005. Considers whether a consent order of February 1994, compromising original proceedings concerning a boundary dispute between neighbours, was void for uncertainty. Appeal by the appellant (D) against the earlier decision ((2003) EWHC 1601 (QB)) that the 1994 consent order was void for uncertainty. Proceedings between S and D as to the precise line of the boundary between their properties had commenced in 1989. The 1994 consent order requiring respondents (S) to remove a barn and other appurtenances from D's land was declared to be void for uncertainty in a judgment of 2002, an appeal against which was dismissed in July 2003. The 2002 judgment rejected entirely S's case based on mistake and the 2003 decision dismissed both D's appeal on the uncertainty issue and S's cross-appeal on the question of costs. "Held": appeal allowed. S's claim to set aside the February 1994 consent order for uncertainty must in any event fall on its merits. It would be a complete injustice to conclude that the parties had completely failed on the grounds of uncertainty to settle their litigation at all just because of the difficulty of precisely defining the boundary line at one point on the boundary.
590			_aIKA190505
650			_aSCAMMELL V DICKER
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT-BOUNDARY DETERMINATION-BOUNDARIES
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/405.html _zView the 2005 decision free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c75199 _d75199