Clochfaen Estate Ltd v Bryn Blaen Wind Farm Ltd & Ors

Clochfaen Estate Ltd v Bryn Blaen Wind Farm Ltd & Ors

The works carried out on the servient land from May 2017 to April 2018 constituted a substantial interference with the claimant's sporting rights, as they were industrial in nature and excluded parts of the land from the exercise of those rights. However, the interference was temporary, and there was no continuing or likely future substantial interference. Given the claimant's weak bargaining position and the lack of pecuniary loss, nominal damages were appropriate, and injunctive relief was not warranted.

Parties
Claimant: Clochfaen Estate Limited; First Defendant: Bryn Blaen Wind Farm Limited; Second Defendant: Edward David Howells; Third Defendant: Gareth Wyn Howells; Fourth Defendant: Jones Bros. Ruthin (Civil Engineering) Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/trusts / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Declaration granted; nominal damages awarded; injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Easements and Profits À Prendre, Trespass, Damages, Injunctions
Property Law Tort Law Easements and Profits À Prendre Trespass Damages Injunctions

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clochfaen Estate Limited

Claimant

Bryn Blaen Wind Farm Limited

First Defendant

Edward David Howells

Second Defendant

Gareth Wyn Howells

Third Defendant

Jones Bros. Ruthin (Civil Engineering) Company Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/trusts / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the construction and operation of windfarm works constituted substantial interference with the claimant's sporting rights over the servient land
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to damages and/or injunctive relief for such interference

Ratio Decidendi

The works carried out on the servient land from May 2017 to April 2018 constituted a substantial interference with the claimant's sporting rights, as they were industrial in nature and excluded parts of the land from the exercise of those rights. However, the interference was temporary, and there was no continuing or likely future substantial interference. Given the claimant's weak bargaining position and the lack of pecuniary loss, nominal damages were appropriate, and injunctive relief was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted; nominal damages awarded; injunction refused.

Orders

  • Declaration of substantial interference with rights between May 2017 and April 2018
  • Nominal damages of £100 awarded jointly and severally against all defendants