Centaur Property Estates Ltd & Anor v Scott & Ors [2024] EWHC 127 (Ch) (26 January 2024)

Centaur Property Estates Ltd & Anor v Scott & Ors [2024] EWHC 127 (Ch) (26 January 2024)

The court upheld the Judge's finding that Centaur was entitled to a right of way by estoppel and that the Defendants were entitled to an exclusive right of parking. The form of relief should reflect the agreement between the parties and not be limited by business hours or user. Costs were apportioned by issue due to mixed success.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 127 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Centaur Property Estates Limited; Appellant/respondent: Terence Frederick Blackman; Respondent/appellant: Larry Thornton Scott; Respondent/appellant: Bridget Jones (in her capacity as executrix of the estate of Ernest John Jones Deceased); Respondent/appellant: Advanced Vehicle Alarms Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Consequential Order and Costs Determination
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part; consequential order made reflecting the court's findings; issues-based costs order made.
Legal Topics
Easements, Proprietary Estoppel, Rights of Way, Parking Rights, Costs Orders
Property Law Civil Procedure Easements Proprietary Estoppel Rights of Way Parking Rights Costs Orders

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Centaur Property Estates Limited

Appellant/respondent

Terence Frederick Blackman

Appellant/respondent

Larry Thornton Scott

Respondent/appellant

Bridget Jones (in her capacity as executrix of the estate of Ernest John Jones Deceased)

Respondent/appellant

Advanced Vehicle Alarms Limited

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment Consequential Order and Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right of parking granted to the Defendants is capable of being an easement and should be exclusive.
  2. 2 Whether Centaur's right of way should be unconditional or limited to business hours/business user.
  3. 3 Whether Mr Blackman's right of way should be personal or extend to occupiers of No 84 Lee High Road.

Ratio Decidendi

The court upheld the Judge's finding that Centaur was entitled to a right of way by estoppel and that the Defendants were entitled to an exclusive right of parking. The form of relief should reflect the agreement between the parties and not be limited by business hours or user. Costs were apportioned by issue due to mixed success.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part; consequential order made reflecting the court's findings; issues-based costs order made.

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of the December Order replaced with the court's formulation of the right of way.
  • Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the December Order replaced to reflect exclusive right of parking for Defendants and extension of right of way to Mr Blackman.