P & S Platt Ltd. v Crouch & Anor

P & S Platt Ltd. v Crouch & Anor

The rights to use the river moorings and ancillary rights were continuous, apparent, and enjoyed with the hotel, and there was no contrary intention expressed or implied to exclude s.62. The rights did not amount to exclusive possession and were capable of being easements. Therefore, s.62 operated to convert the quasi-easements into legal easements in favour of the Claimant upon transfer of the hotel. Rectification was not available as there was no common intention to exclude the rights.

Parties
Claimant: P & S Platt Ltd.; Defendants/appellants: Philip Crouch and Gwendoline Crouch
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Easements, Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925, Conveyancing, Rectification, Interpretation of Contracts
Property Law Contract Law Easements Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925 Conveyancing Rectification Interpretation of Contracts

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P & S Platt Ltd.

Claimant

Philip Crouch and Gwendoline Crouch

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether quasi-easements over retained land became legal easements under s.62 Law of Property Act 1925 upon transfer of part of property
  2. 2 Whether the rights claimed were capable of being easements or amounted to exclusive possession
  3. 3 Whether the parties intended to exclude the operation of s.62 by their negotiations or contract terms

Ratio Decidendi

The rights to use the river moorings and ancillary rights were continuous, apparent, and enjoyed with the hotel, and there was no contrary intention expressed or implied to exclude s.62. The rights did not amount to exclusive possession and were capable of being easements. Therefore, s.62 operated to convert the quasi-easements into legal easements in favour of the Claimant upon transfer of the hotel. Rectification was not available as there was no common intention to exclude the rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declarations granted to Claimant as to rights over river moorings and ancillary rights (excluding fishing right)
  • Counterclaim for rectification dismissed