Mills v Partridge, The Estate of & Anor

Mills v Partridge, The Estate of & Anor

The Defendants' use of the Track and Field for non-agricultural purposes, including the operation of the tea room, parking, and storage/sale of non-agricultural goods, constitutes a breach of the restrictive covenants and easements limiting use to 'agricultural land only'. The tea room is a separate, non-agricultural business and not ancillary to the Nursery. The Defendants have not acquired prescriptive rights to use the Track or Field for non-agricultural purposes, nor to the Disputed Land. The obligation to maintain a stock proof fence is not enforceable by the Claimant due to long-term non-compliance and lack of complaint (presumed release/waiver). The Claimant is entitled to relief...

Parties
Claimant: Pamela Susan Cardwell Mills; First Defendant: The Estate of Philip John Partridge (Deceased) (represented by Lynette Alaine Partridge); Second Defendant: Lynette Alaine Partridge
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Property Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed in relevant parts.
Legal Topics
Easements, Restrictive Covenants, Trespass, Adverse Possession, Prescription, Boundary Disputes, Delay and Laches
Property Law Equity Land Law Easements Restrictive Covenants Trespass Adverse Possession Prescription +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 6 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pamela Susan Cardwell Mills

Claimant

The Estate of Philip John Partridge (Deceased) (represented by Lynette Alaine Partridge)

First Defendant

Lynette Alaine Partridge

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of the Track and Field by the Defendants for non-agricultural purposes breaches restrictive covenants and easements limiting use to 'agricultural land only'.
  2. 2 Whether the expansion of the Nursery business, including the operation of a tea room, constitutes a breach of covenant and trespass.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants have acquired prescriptive rights or rights by long user over the Track, Field, and Disputed Land.

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants' use of the Track and Field for non-agricultural purposes, including the operation of the tea room, parking, and storage/sale of non-agricultural goods, constitutes a breach of the restrictive covenants and easements limiting use to 'agricultural land only'. The tea room is a separate, non-agricultural business and not ancillary to the Nursery. The Defendants have not acquired prescriptive rights to use the Track or Field for non-agricultural purposes, nor to the Disputed Land. The obligation to maintain a stock proof fence is not enforceable by the Claimant due to long-term non-compliance and lack of complaint (presumed release/waiver). The Claimant is entitled to relief...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed in relevant parts.

Orders

  • Declarations that the Defendants' non-agricultural use of the Track and Field (including the tea room, non-agricultural parking, and storage/sale of non-agricultural goods) is in breach of covenant and constitutes trespass.
  • Injunctions to restrain non-agricultural use of the Track and Field, subject to further determination of precise terms.