Leven Holdings Ltd v Johnston & Ors

Leven Holdings Ltd v Johnston & Ors

The defendants failed to prove any express, implied, prescriptive, or presumed right of way over the ESR for any purpose. There was no evidence of a relevant conveyance or grant, no sufficient user as of right for the necessary period, and any user was either by licence, too sporadic, or became contentious before 20 years elapsed. The claimant is entitled to a declaration that no such right exists, save for limited agricultural use for certain plots as admitted by the claimant.

Parties
Claimant: Leven Holdings Limited; First Defendant: Nicholas Matthew Middlemass Johnston; Second Defendant: Giantflow Limited; Third Defendant: Dorncroft Limited; Fourth Defendant: Johnston Quarry Group Limited; Fifth Defendant: Vision Motorsport Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed. Defendants' counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Easements, Right of Way, Prescription, Implied Easements, Lost Modern Grant
Property Law Land Law Easements Right of Way Prescription Implied Easements 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leven Holdings Limited

Claimant

Nicholas Matthew Middlemass Johnston

First Defendant

Giantflow Limited

Second Defendant

Dorncroft Limited

Third Defendant

Johnston Quarry Group Limited

Fourth Defendant

Vision Motorsport Limited

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants have an express, implied, prescriptive, or presumed right of way over the claimant's land (the estate service road, ESR)
  2. 2 Whether any right of way exists for the benefit of the Great Tew Estate or its constituent plots over the ESR
  3. 3 Whether any such right of way exists by express grant, implication (section 62 Law of Property Act 1925 or Wheeldon v Burrows), prescription, or lost modern grant

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to prove any express, implied, prescriptive, or presumed right of way over the ESR for any purpose. There was no evidence of a relevant conveyance or grant, no sufficient user as of right for the necessary period, and any user was either by licence, too sporadic, or became contentious before 20 years elapsed. The claimant is entitled to a declaration that no such right exists, save for limited agricultural use for certain plots as admitted by the claimant.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Defendants' counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendants do not have an express, implied, prescriptive, or presumed right of way over the ESR, save for limited agricultural use for certain plots as admitted by the claimant.
  • Further directions to be discussed upon hand down of judgment.