Poste Hotels Ltd v Cousins

Poste Hotels Ltd v Cousins

The Defendant has, by prescription, acquired a general right to park in Church Court appurtenant to her property, but not a right to park in front of the laundry doors as such parking would interfere with the Claimant’s prior prescriptive right of way. The Defendant failed to establish a prescriptive right to commit a nuisance, estoppel by acquiescence, or laches. The adjournment of the injunction application was proper. The Defendant is not entitled to a negative declaration against the Claimant’s right to park as there is no actual or threatened interference, and such a declaration would serve no practical purpose.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Poste Hotels Limited; Defendant/appellant: Tracey Anne Cousins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal both dismissed; declarations as per County Court order upheld; costs reserved for further submissions.
Legal Topics
Easements, Prescription, Right of Way, Parking Rights, Declaratory Relief, Injunctions, Nuisance
Property Law Civil Procedure Easements Prescription Right of Way Parking Rights Declaratory Relief Injunctions +1 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Poste Hotels Limited

Claimant/respondent

Tracey Anne Cousins

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant has an easement of parking in Church Court
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's parking interferes with the Claimant's right of way
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant has a right to park in front of the doors to the laundry

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant has, by prescription, acquired a general right to park in Church Court appurtenant to her property, but not a right to park in front of the laundry doors as such parking would interfere with the Claimant’s prior prescriptive right of way. The Defendant failed to establish a prescriptive right to commit a nuisance, estoppel by acquiescence, or laches. The adjournment of the injunction application was proper. The Defendant is not entitled to a negative declaration against the Claimant’s right to park as there is no actual or threatened interference, and such a declaration would serve no practical purpose.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal both dismissed; declarations as per County Court order upheld; costs reserved for further submissions.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendant has a general right to park in Church Court but not in front of the laundry doors.
  • Declaration that the Claimant has a right of way, both pedestrian and vehicular, over Church Court to the laundry.