Alford v Hannaford & Anor

Alford v Hannaford & Anor

The right of way granted to Mrs Alford under clause 2 of the 1991 transfer does not include a right to drive animals along the track, being limited to pedestrian and vehicular use. Mrs Alford is not entitled to access the track through gate 'X' by express or implied grant, as the factual matrix and terms of the transfer exclude such a right. The 2003 oral agreement estops Mrs Alford from using the track south of the cross-over gates for farming purposes, restricting her to pedestrian use. The form of the order, including the injunction, is justified by prior conduct and the need to prevent future disputes.

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 Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Easements, Right of Way, Implied Grant, Estoppel, Contractual Interpretation
Property Law Civil Procedure Easements Right of Way Implied Grant Estoppel Contractual Interpretation

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

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 Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right of way granted to Mrs Alford includes a right to drive animals along the track or is limited to pedestrian and vehicular use
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Alford is entitled to access the track through gate 'X'
  3. 3 Whether an implied grant of easement exists under s.62 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Ratio Decidendi

The right of way granted to Mrs Alford under clause 2 of the 1991 transfer does not include a right to drive animals along the track, being limited to pedestrian and vehicular use. Mrs Alford is not entitled to access the track through gate 'X' by express or implied grant, as the factual matrix and terms of the transfer exclude such a right. The 2003 oral agreement estops Mrs Alford from using the track south of the cross-over gates for farming purposes, restricting her to pedestrian use. The form of the order, including the injunction, is justified by prior conduct and the need to prevent future disputes.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that Mrs Alford retains right of way south of cross-over gates to point 'A'-'B' for pedestrian use only
  • Declaration that Mrs Alford and successors are not entitled to bring action for interference with right of way due to existing lie of land or vegetation unless materially altered