Jones v Cleanthi

Jones v Cleanthi

The easement of access to the rear area for refuse storage, though created by covenant in the lease, was extinguished by the statutory obligation and power imposed by the section 352 notice under the Housing Act 1985, as the works required were physically inconsistent with the continuance of the easement. There was no longer any practical possibility of the easement benefiting the dominant tenement, and thus it was extinguished by necessary implication.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Elizabeth Jones; Defendant/respondent: Christos Emmanuel Cleanthi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extinguishment of Easements, Statutory Powers and Duties, Covenants in Leases, Housing Act 1985, Remedies for Obstruction of Easements
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Statutory Interpretation Extinguishment of Easements Statutory Powers and Duties Covenants in Leases Housing Act 1985 Remedies for Obstruction of Easements

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Jones

Claimant/appellant

Christos Emmanuel Cleanthi

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a statutory notice under section 352 of the Housing Act 1985 and works carried out pursuant to it can extinguish a leasehold easement of access to a bin storage area
  2. 2 Whether the easement, being a contractual right, survives the statutory works
  3. 3 Whether the landlord's conduct in failing to appeal or inform the lessee affects the extinguishment of the easement

Ratio Decidendi

The easement of access to the rear area for refuse storage, though created by covenant in the lease, was extinguished by the statutory obligation and power imposed by the section 352 notice under the Housing Act 1985, as the works required were physically inconsistent with the continuance of the easement. There was no longer any practical possibility of the easement benefiting the dominant tenement, and thus it was extinguished by necessary implication.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed