Boundary Dispute: Appeal of Limited Damages and Denial of Injunction

A plaintiff, having obtained a partial judgment in their favor regarding a boundary dispute, appealed the lower court's decision to limit the awarded damages and dismiss the claim for a mandatory injunction to remove an encroachment, arguing the lower court failed to sufficiently address the full scope of their claims and violated established procedural rules by making contradictory findings. The high court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the lower court's findings, while perhaps presenting on first reading a seeming contradiction between the established boundary and the refusal of the mandatory injunction, were adequately reasoned as the judge was entitled to assess the factual circumstances and determine that while the encroachment was proven, ordering its removal was disproportionate or unnecessary given the context, and thus did not constitute a failure to rule or a legally insufficient motivation.