Taylor v Burton & Anor

Taylor v Burton & Anor

Ground 1 was not disposed of by agreement as negotiations remained 'subject to contract' and no binding contract was entered. The judge's order as to the limits of the right of way was ambiguous and unsatisfactory, particularly regarding the inclusion of the black land. The identification of the servient land subject to the right of way must be the subject of a re-trial. The findings on interference and costs are also to be reconsidered at the re-trial.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: David Michael John Taylor; Respondent/claimant: Paul Arthur Burton; Respondent/claimant: Janette Anne Burton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal; Post Judgment Application and Re Trial Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; orders set aside; re-trial ordered
Legal Topics
Easements, Prescriptive Rights, Right of Way, Neighbour Disputes, Declaratory Relief, Damages, Costs, Appeal Procedure
Property Law Civil Procedure Easements Prescriptive Rights Right of Way Neighbour Disputes Declaratory Relief Damages +2 more

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

Parties

David Michael John Taylor

Appellant/defendant

Paul Arthur Burton

Respondent/claimant

Janette Anne Burton

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal; Post Judgment Application and Re Trial Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ground 1 of the appeal (concerning the identification of servient land subject to a right of way) was disposed of by agreement;
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in his declaration as to the limits of the right of way;
  3. 3 Whether the Burtons had a prescriptive right of way over the black land;

Ratio Decidendi

Ground 1 was not disposed of by agreement as negotiations remained 'subject to contract' and no binding contract was entered. The judge's order as to the limits of the right of way was ambiguous and unsatisfactory, particularly regarding the inclusion of the black land. The identification of the servient land subject to the right of way must be the subject of a re-trial. The findings on interference and costs are also to be reconsidered at the re-trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; orders set aside; re-trial ordered

Orders

  • Recall the orders the Court of Appeal was disposed to make as explained in the January 2014 and February 2014 judgments.
  • Set aside paragraph 1 of Judge Barham’s order of 12 January 2012 to the extent of £500 of the damages award of £520.