Loveluck-Edwards & Anor v Ideal Developments Ltd. & Anor

Loveluck-Edwards & Anor v Ideal Developments Ltd. & Anor

The claimants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimed right of way was enjoyed at the time of the 1920 conveyance or acquired by prescription, as the use was with permission and not 'as of right'; thus, no easement exists and the claim is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: William Ewart Loveluck-Edwards; Claimant: Beatrice Patricia Dawn Loveluck-Edwards; First Defendant / Part 20 Defendant: Ideal Developments Limited; First Defendant / Part 20 Defendant: Westbury Homes (Holdings) Limited; Second Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: Richard Dean Dyke; Second Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: Helen Louise Dyke
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Easements, Right of Way, Prescription, Implied Grant, Conveyancing, Lost Modern Grant
Property Law Civil Procedure Easements Right of Way Prescription Implied Grant Conveyancing Lost Modern Grant

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 9 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Ewart Loveluck-Edwards

Claimant

Beatrice Patricia Dawn Loveluck-Edwards

Claimant

Ideal Developments Limited

First Defendant / Part 20 Defendant

Westbury Homes (Holdings) Limited

First Defendant / Part 20 Defendant

Richard Dean Dyke

Second Defendant / Part 20 Claimant

Helen Louise Dyke

Second Defendant / Part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have a right of way over Broadlands Lane and Broadlands Fawr Farmhouse by express grant, implied grant, or prescription
  2. 2 Whether the right of way was enjoyed at the time of the 1920 conveyance
  3. 3 Whether the claimants acquired a prescriptive easement by long use

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimed right of way was enjoyed at the time of the 1920 conveyance or acquired by prescription, as the use was with permission and not 'as of right'; thus, no easement exists and the claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed