Williams & Anor v Sandy Lane (Chester) Ltd

Williams & Anor v Sandy Lane (Chester) Ltd

The appellants acquired rights of way by prescription over both the primary and secondary routes. The respondent (and its predecessor, the Council) had constructive knowledge of the use, particularly after receipt of Miss Hibbitt's 1984 letter, and could have taken steps to prevent it but did not, thereby acquiescing. The existence and terms of the tenancy did not preclude acquisition of the right. The right over the secondary route was not abandoned, as non-user was due to convenience, not intention to abandon.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Sydney Trevor Williams; Claimant/appellant: Rita Mavis Hibbitt; Defendant/respondent: Sandy Lane (Chester) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Easements, Prescription, Abandonment of Rights of Way, Landlord and Tenant
Property Law Land Law Easements Prescription Abandonment of Rights of Way Landlord and Tenant

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sydney Trevor Williams

Claimant/appellant

Rita Mavis Hibbitt

Claimant/appellant

Sandy Lane (Chester) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants acquired a right of way by prescription over the respondent's land via the primary and/or secondary route
  2. 2 Whether any such right was lost by abandonment
  3. 3 Whether the existence and terms of a tenancy precluded acquisition of a prescriptive easement

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants acquired rights of way by prescription over both the primary and secondary routes. The respondent (and its predecessor, the Council) had constructive knowledge of the use, particularly after receipt of Miss Hibbitt's 1984 letter, and could have taken steps to prevent it but did not, thereby acquiescing. The existence and terms of the tenancy did not preclude acquisition of the right. The right over the secondary route was not abandoned, as non-user was due to convenience, not intention to abandon.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the appellants are entitled to rights of way over both the primary and secondary routes as claimed.
  • If parties cannot agree on the definition of the routes, the matter is remitted to the judge for determination.