Leven Holdings Ltd v Johnston & Ors [2018] EWHC 223 (Ch) (09 February 2018)

Leven Holdings Ltd v Johnston & Ors [2018] EWHC 223 (Ch) (09 February 2018)

The defendants have not established any express, implied, or prescriptive right of way over the claimant's estate service road (ESR) except for limited agricultural purposes for plots 2 and 4. The evidence shows use was by licence or tolerated trespass, not as of right. No broader easement exists in favour of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 223 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Leven Holdings Limited; First Defendant: Nicholas Matthew Middlemass Johnston; Second Defendant: Giantflow Limited; Third Defendant: Dorncroft Limited; Fourth Defendant: Johnston Quarry Group Limited; Fifth Defendant: Vision Motorsport Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Declaration and Injunction / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; declaration granted; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Easements, Right of Way, Prescription, Lost Modern Grant, Implied Rights, Licensing, Land Registration
Property Law Civil Procedure Easements Right of Way Prescription Lost Modern Grant Implied Rights Licensing +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leven Holdings Limited

Claimant

Nicholas Matthew Middlemass Johnston

First Defendant

Giantflow Limited

Second Defendant

Dorncroft Limited

Third Defendant

Johnston Quarry Group Limited

Fourth Defendant

Vision Motorsport Limited

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Declaration and Injunction / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants have a right of way over the claimant's land (the estate service road/ESR)
  2. 2 Whether any such right exists by express grant, implication, prescription, or lost modern grant
  3. 3 Whether the defendants or their tenants may use the ESR for purposes beyond agricultural use

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants have not established any express, implied, or prescriptive right of way over the claimant's estate service road (ESR) except for limited agricultural purposes for plots 2 and 4. The evidence shows use was by licence or tolerated trespass, not as of right. No broader easement exists in favour of the defendants or their tenants.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; declaration granted; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendants do not have a right of way over the claimant's estate service road except for limited agricultural purposes for plots 2 and 4
  • Order preventing use of the estate service road by the defendants and their tenants except as declared