‘In Wood v Waddington [2015] EWCA Civ 538, at first instance, Morgan J. found the Claimants had not established they had rights of way over the Defendant’s land. Lewison L.J. (with whom Richards and McCombe L.J.J. agreed) thought otherwise. The case raises some nice points in respect of easements.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 7th July 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Winterburn and another v Bennett and another [2016] EWCA Civ 482
‘The claimant owners of a fish and chip shop claimed as a result of use over a number of years to have acquired by prescription the right for themselves and others using their premises to park on land comprising part of a car park belonging to the defendants. The defendants’ premises, which were next to the car park, had been used as a club and users of those premises used the car park. The entrance to the car park was adjacent to the claimants’ shop. The claimants had operated the shop from about 1987 or 1988 until 2012. Throughout that time, their suppliers had up to nine times a week pulled off the road into the disputed part of the car park and parked there for long enough to make their deliveries, and their customers had parked on the disputed land while they bought their fish and chips. On the whole that use of part of the car park did not interfere with the s’ operations but over a seven-year period there were 12 to 15 occasions on which the defendants asserted ownership of the disputed land, and, expressly or impliedly, asserted that the claimants and their suppliers and customers had no right to park on it. At all times until 2007 there was a sign attached to the wall of the building on one side of the entranceway to the car park, erected on behalf of the defendants, stating “Private car park. For the use of Club patrons only. By order of the Committee”, and a similar sign in the window of the club premises. The claimants claimed that their right to park, acquired by prescription by “lost modern grant”, had been established by their 20 years’ uninterrupted user “as of right”, namely, without force, without secrecy and without permission. The First-tier Tribunal found that, although the two signs were clearly visible, they were insufficient to prevent the claimants from acquiring the claimed parking rights. The Upper Tribunal allowed the defendants’ appeal, reversing that finding.’
WLR Daily, 25th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Up to 1,000 rights of way could be re-established centuries after they stopped being recorded on maps after a landmark High Court ruling.’
The Independent, 2nd July 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Supreme Court, 18th March 2015
‘The Supreme Court has rejected – by a 3-2 majority – a county council’s appeal over whether an application by motorcyclists to upgrade rights of way complied with relevant statutory requirements.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th March 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Married couples spend £500,000 on venomous neighbours’ dispute about “thin strip” of drainage ditch alongside path dividing Cheshire country homes.’
Daily Telegraph, 17th November 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“A map produced to a scale of 1:25,000, even if digitally derived from an original map of a different scale, satisfied the requirements for a map accompanying an application to modify a right of way that were set out in paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.”
WLR Daily, 20th May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Moore v British Waterways Board [2013] EWCA Civ 73; [2013] WLR (D) 59
“At common law a riparian owner who did not own the river bed had no right to moor vessels there permanently. However, absence of a right to moor did not necessarily mean that a vessel was moored ‘without lawful authority’ within section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983, which empowered the British Waterways Board to remove a vessel.”
WLR Daily, 14th Febraury 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“In these somewhat tricky financial times, it is unsurprising that the Government is keen to persuade property developers to do their bit to kick-start the ailing economy by dusting off chunks of their carefully land-banked acreage and getting on with long-shelved construction projects. However, many things have changed in this post-banking-apocalypse world, and it is unlikely that developers will be in a position simply to take up projects exactly where they left off a few years ago. In addition to the obvious funding difficulties they now face, developers large and small will need to be alert to changes in planning policy and local needs since they put their projects on hold. These will be particularly relevant where the developer requires an extension of time on the original planning permission or where he wishes to escape from or mitigate the burden of an obligation previously accepted in order to obtain that permission or to deal with reserved matters.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 10th December 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“In Joyce v Epsom & Ewell BC [2012] EWCA Civ 1398, the Court of Appeal were faced with a not dissimilar case to the classic Crabb v Arun DC [1976] 1 Ch 179, at least in so far as it was a claim to an easement against a local authority by way of proprietary estoppel.”
NearlyLegal, 9th November 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Fortune and others v Wiltshire Council and another [2012] EWCA Civ 334; [2012] WLR (D) 90
“Section 67(2)(b) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which provided that section 67(1), as to the ending of certain existing unrecorded public rights of way, did not apply where such a right of way was shown in a list of highways maintainable at public expense, as required to be kept by councils under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980, did not require that list to be fully complaint with section 36(6), rather the requirement was that such a list should exist.”
WLR Daily, 20th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A long and bitter feud between a pair of millionaire Surrey neighbours has taken an expensive turn after their argument over a ‘wiggly path leading to nowhere’ reached the Appeal Court.”
Daily Telegraph, 16th January 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Retrospective legislation often gives rise to claims under Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention – you may have some legal advantage (whether it be property or a legal claim) which you then find yourselves losing as a result of the change of law. I have posted on some of these, the ban of the pub fag machine, or the change in the law that meant insurers had to pay compensation for pleural plaques caused by asbestos. These A1P1 cases are not easy to win, not least because the courts are wary in thwarting legislative changes via one of the less fundamental and most qualified rights in the Convention locker.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th December 2011
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Although the court had a wide discretion to grant declaratory relief in diverse circumstances in both public and private law proceedings, where a party who was not a party to the contract brought private proceedings seeking declaratory relief to enforce a public authority’s planning obligation the court would not lend its assistance.”
WLR Daily, 17th March 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“An application under s 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to upgrade a byway from a road used as a public path to a byway open to all traffic did not need to be made in a single document. The lack of a date and signature on the application might be cured by a letter sent shortly after the submission of the form but where no date or signature was supplied for ten weeks the statutory requirements in para 1 of Sch 14 to the 1981 Act had not been complied with. In the instant case the applicant’s failure to make clear the extent of the route which he wanted the local authority to upgrade, together with his failure to supply a map, were also departures from the strict requirements set out in Wildlife and Countryside (Definitive Maps and Statements) Regulations 1993. Together the departures from the strict requirements required that the application be rejected.”
WLR Daily, 19th March 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Ramblers scored a landmark victory over a multi-millionaire landowner yesterday when a top judge told him he must tear down the “impressive” iron gateway to his Somerset estate.”
Daily Telegraph, 18th February 2010
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Bee and another v Thompson [2009] EWCA Civ 1212; [2009] WLR (D) 345
“Where a bequest of land in adjacent parcels to different beneficiaries expressly provided that the owner of one parcel should enjoy a right of way over a track running over the other, but the vesting consents which conveyed the land to the beneficiaries did not grant such an easement, the will and the assents were to be construed together as a single transaction so as to give full effect to the testatrix’s intention. However such a right of way ‘at all times and for all purposes connected with’ the dominant tenement did not entitle the owner of that land to increase the user of the right of way from that associated with the agricultural purposes for which it had been used when the right of way had been granted to that associated with three houses.”
WLR Daily, 30th November 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A feud between neighbours turned so bitter that one couple tried to impose a curfew preventing the other from leaving their home at night, the High Court has heard.”
Daily Telegraph, 12th March 2009
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“A landowner has been ordered by a judge to remove wrought iron gates blocking a public footpath after a five-year, £300,000 legal battle.”
Daily Telegraph, 11th March 2009
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Farmers and landowners have pledged to fight for compensation if a new coastal path crosses their land.”
Daily Telegraph, 2nd December 2008
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024