Alford v Hannaford & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1099 (07 October 2011)

Alford v Hannaford & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1099 (07 October 2011)

The right of way granted to Mrs Alford under the 1991 transfer did not include the right to drive animals along the track, being limited to pedestrian and vehicular use. Access through gate 'X' was not granted either expressly or by implied grant under s.62, as there was insufficient diversity of occupation and no continuous and apparent use. The 2003 agreement, as found by the judge, restricted Mrs Alford's farming use of the track south of the cross-over gates, and both parties were estopped from denying its terms. The form of the order, including the declarations and injunction, was appropriate and within the judge's discretion.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 1099
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Ellen Mary Alford; Defendant/respondent: Anthony Peter Broadribb Hannaford; Defendant/respondent: Laurinda Susan Hannaford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Plymouth County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Easements, Right of Way, Implied Grant, Estoppel, Interpretation of Deeds, Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925
Property Law Land Law Easements Right of Way Implied Grant Estoppel Interpretation of Deeds Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ellen Mary Alford

Claimant/appellant

Anthony Peter Broadribb Hannaford

Defendant/respondent

Laurinda Susan Hannaford

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Plymouth County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right of way granted to Mrs Alford included the right to drive animals along the track or was limited to pedestrian and vehicular use
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Alford was entitled to access the track through gate 'X' under the 1991 transfer or by implied grant under s.62 Law of Property Act 1925
  3. 3 Effect of the 2003 oral agreement on the use of the track for farming purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The right of way granted to Mrs Alford under the 1991 transfer did not include the right to drive animals along the track, being limited to pedestrian and vehicular use. Access through gate 'X' was not granted either expressly or by implied grant under s.62, as there was insufficient diversity of occupation and no continuous and apparent use. The 2003 agreement, as found by the judge, restricted Mrs Alford's farming use of the track south of the cross-over gates, and both parties were estopped from denying its terms. The form of the order, including the declarations and injunction, was appropriate and within the judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that Mrs Alford's right of way under the 1991 transfer is limited to pedestrian and vehicular use, not animals.
  • Declaration that Mrs Alford is not entitled to access the track through gate 'X'.