BOUNDARY SURVEYS & EXPERT WITNESS
‘I found Mr Vaughan an impressive witness. He was extremely knowledgeable about his subject without being overconfident or arrogant. He was fair to Mr and Mrs Smith, both at the site view and in court. He produced updated documents to assist me at short notice and with good grace. I accept his explanation as being the most likely reason for the reduction in the expressed frontage of number 8 conveyed in and after 1963.’I would have no hesitation in recommending Dorset Land Surveying to anybody who requires good quality Land and Measured Building Survey at competitive prices’
Mr Simon Brilliant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE – CHANCERY DIVISION
Property Address: Mannings Heath Road, Poole, Dorset
Made by Mr Justice Vos
Approved Judgement in Case No: HC07C02970
13th January 2010
EXTRACT OF JUDGEMENT…
‘I have reached the clear conclusion that Mr Vaughan’s approach is generally to be preferred…’
EXTRACT OF JUDGEMENT…
‘Mr Vaughan’s exercises seem to me to provide a general indication that the boundary is likely to be some metres forward of point D, and possibly even further forward than point B. His methods are accepted as valid.’
IN THE POOLE COUNTY COURT
Property Address: Cotton Close, Broadstone, Poole, Dorset
Made by instructing Solicitor on the judgement by Mr Recorder Mawhinney
In Case No: 9PH03380
19th November 2009
‘I am pleased to be able to report that the Judge has received your evidence (at all stages) very favourably indeed – in stark contrast to the receipt of Expert B’s evidence. The Judge responded very directly and very firmly to the criticisms of your impartiality made by the Defendant’s Counsel indicating that not only did he disagree with those criticisms, but felt them to have been made most unfairly and inappropriately. His own impression of you was that you were an entirely professional and impartial expert witness who acted entirely within the wording and the spirit of Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, noting that on at least one and possibly two occasions you had volunteered evidence which could only be said to be favourable to the Defendant’s case. By contrast, he criticised Expert B for apparent uncertainty, changing his mind too often and contributing to the weakening of the defence by unsolicited remarks he made whilst being re-examined by the Defendant’s Counsel.’
‘The word expert is used very casually today. Gary Vaughan is a true expert. We had a choice of two local firms specialising in boundary disputes. ‘Expert B’ advertises himself as the best in the area. Self praise is no recommendation so we chose Gary. Gary acted as a professional all the way through trial. His report was accurate, unbiased, prepared as a neutral for the court. ‘Expert B’s’ report acting for the other side was unbelievably poor. It relied to a great extent on what their clients had told them.’
Mr Simon Brilliant
IN THE POOLE COUNTY COURT
Property Address: Newmans Lane, West Moors, Dorset
Made by His Honour Judge Marston
Judgement in Case No: 6PH04360
3rd June 2006
EXTRACT OF JUDGEMENT…
‘There is a disagreement (between the experts) about what this solid line on the 1967 OS mapping represents. The Claimant’s expert (Mr Vaughan) is of the opinion that the solid line shown to the west of the farm track is the central route of the hedge whilst at this point ‘Expert B’ is of the opinion that the solid line on the OS mapping shown to the west of the farm track is the ditch. However, when shown an e-mail from the Ordnance Survey which demonstrates conclusively that Mr Vaughan’s view of the matter is right, ‘Expert B’ said to me in cross-examination: “I changed my mind when I saw the OS e-mail. That is irrefutable. The line on the map is the central line of the hedge” ‘.
EXTRACT OF JUDGEMENT…
‘The effect of ignoring all of this evidence is that the extended right of way of 36 feet given by the conveyance to the Claimant adding a further 8 feet to the pre-existing right of way of 28 feet actually gives restricted rights of access to the Claimant and that just doesn’t make sense. On this issue, having examined the evidence, I find on the balance of probabilities that the Claimant’s case is right. The evidence on that matter is in my view overwhelming.’