Bockenfield Aerodrome Ltd & Anor v Scott Clarehugh

Bockenfield Aerodrome Ltd & Anor v Scott Clarehugh

The defendants’ trees, by growing into the airspace subject to the claimant’s easement, substantially interfered with the claimant’s right to overfly at a safe height (20ft clearance at the boundary), preventing stable approaches and safe take-off/landing. The easement is construed to require a safe height for people and property on the ground, but the current tree heights exceed what is reasonable, and the interference is actionable. The measured duty of care does not arise as the trees do not present a hazard to the claimant’s land per se, and the claim for derogation from grant fails as to Merlin Wood due to insufficient evidence of substantial impact. The appropriate remedy is an...

Parties
Claimant: Bockenfield Aerodrome Limited; First Defendant: Scott Clarehugh; Second Defendant: Laura Clarehugh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/easement Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; injunction granted; damages largely denied.
Legal Topics
Express Easement Construction, Derogation From Grant, Measured Duty of Care, Injunctions, Damages
Property Law Easements Nuisance Express Easement Construction Derogation From Grant Measured Duty of Care Injunctions Damages

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bockenfield Aerodrome Limited

Claimant

Scott Clarehugh

First Defendant

Laura Clarehugh

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/easement Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should the grant of the easement in the 2 February 1993 conveyance be construed?
  2. 2 Have the defendants substantially interfered with the easement?
  3. 3 Have the defendants derogated from the grant?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants’ trees, by growing into the airspace subject to the claimant’s easement, substantially interfered with the claimant’s right to overfly at a safe height (20ft clearance at the boundary), preventing stable approaches and safe take-off/landing. The easement is construed to require a safe height for people and property on the ground, but the current tree heights exceed what is reasonable, and the interference is actionable. The measured duty of care does not arise as the trees do not present a hazard to the claimant’s land per se, and the claim for derogation from grant fails as to Merlin Wood due to insufficient evidence of substantial impact. The appropriate remedy is an...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; injunction granted; damages largely denied.

Orders

  • Injunction to remove or reduce the height of trees interfering with the easement to allow a 20ft clearance at the boundary for safe approach and take-off.
  • Declaration to define the minimum angle of descent for landing consistent with a 20ft boundary crossing.