Gilks & Anor v Hodgson & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 5 (15 January 2015)

Gilks & Anor v Hodgson & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 5 (15 January 2015)

The Respondents acquired a prescriptive vehicular right of way for agricultural purposes over Clay Lane to the east of Fiveacres, based on uninterrupted, non-permissive use; the boundary of Fiveacres is not the centre line of Clay Lane but excludes the ditch, and no right of way exists to the south due to lack of evidence of vehicular use and necessity.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 5
Parties
Claimants/respondents: Richard Thomas Gilks & Another; Defendants/appellants: Adrian Vernon Hodgson & Another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Easements, Right of Way, Prescription, Implied Easements
Property Law Civil Procedure Boundary Disputes Easements Right of Way Prescription Implied Easements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Thomas Gilks & Another

Claimants/respondents

Adrian Vernon Hodgson & Another

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the eastern boundary of Fiveacres?
  2. 2 Does Fiveacres have a vehicular right of way for agricultural purposes over Clay Lane to the east and/or south?

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents acquired a prescriptive vehicular right of way for agricultural purposes over Clay Lane to the east of Fiveacres, based on uninterrupted, non-permissive use; the boundary of Fiveacres is not the centre line of Clay Lane but excludes the ditch, and no right of way exists to the south due to lack of evidence of vehicular use and necessity.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal allowed on boundary issue; boundary excludes ditch and is not centre line of Clay Lane.
  • Appeal allowed against finding of vehicular right of way to the south; no such right exists.