[2025] EWHC 1955 (KB)

The Judge was wrong to ignore the Respondent’s threats of physical violence and acts of aggression in the Courtroom towards the Appellant.

This ground was particularised at paragraph 20 of the Written Submissions. The Applicant says that one of the witnesses for the Respondent (David Williams) smelt of alcohol, and that he attempted to strike the Applicant, and that this was effectively ignored by the Judge. It is said that the Applicant was thrown off by the aggression and could not effectively present his case. The Respondent obtained a favourable judgment by fear and intimidation.

This is not reasonably arguable. Having read the transcript of the relevant passages of evidence, it is clear that the Judge intervened immediately, robustly and properly when Mr Williams spoke or pointed aggressively at Mr Askan, and when later he used threatening language when being questioned. The suggestion that Mr Askan could not thereafter present his case effectively is wholly devoid of merit: the transcript demonstrates that Mr Askan properly continued questioning, and was able to make full, and articulate closing submissions.

As identified earlier, the Court generally (and unsurprisingly) considered Mr Williams to be a poor witness. That evidence from Mr Williams which was accepted (the date of the building of the wall) was substantiated by contemporaneous documentation.

The Judge erred in his reliance on an informal map which was hand-drawn by the Respondents.

The Judge was wrong to ignore all independent and hard evidence provided by the Land Registry, Ordnance Survey, Denbighshire County Planning Department and Google Earth Pro.