![[2025] EWHC 1955 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png){kind=logo}
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
The Applicant alleges that the ‘Court recessed due to a fire alarm. On return, Appellant walked into a conversation Respondent was having with his wife. Judge turned to Respondents representative to query, Clerk of the Court testified that she had not heard them speak.’
The exchange following a short adjournment due to a fire alarm is dealt with at p137 of the transcript. As observed by the Single Judge, the alleged misconduct is not even arguably borne out by the transcript and not otherwise explained by the Applicant. At no point did the Applicant raise any issue with the Judge relating to the clerk. This issue does not remotely constitute a ground upon which to argue that there was a serious irregularity or, if there was, it was in any way material to the outcome of the case.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The Claim and Counterclaim
- The Judgment
- The Court’s Approach on Appeal
- Grounds Of Appeal
- The Judge was wrong to ignore the Respondent’s threats of physical violence and acts of aggression in the Courtroom towards the Appellant
- The Judge was wrong to find, as he did, the ownership of the contested land
- The Judge was wrong to dismiss the argument that an unincorporated organisation cannot claim adverse possession
- The Judge was wrong to find that there was a claim for adverse possession and in granting adverse possession
- The Judge was wrong to grant an easement under the lost modern act
- The Judge was wrong to ignore the direct testimony of the respondent’s witness statement
- The Judge was wrong to deny harassment and nuisance when the respondent first committed an offence
- Other Complaints
- Paragraphs 5 and 6
- Paragraph 22
- Paragraph 24
- The Additional Grounds of Appeal
- Other Applications
- Order that the Respondent complies with the discovery application file on 12 December 2024
- Conclusions