Manor Farm Barns (Essington) Ltd v Clair [2020] EWHC 3030 (QB) (13 November 2020)

Manor Farm Barns (Essington) Ltd v Clair [2020] EWHC 3030 (QB) (13 November 2020)

The right of way granted to the appellant under the transfer is limited to that part of the Shared Driveway which leads up to the gates and no further; this construction is consistent with the language of the transfer, the plan, and the background circumstances. There is no basis to depart from the express wording or to construe the right of way as extending beyond the gates.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3030
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Manor Farm Barns (Essington) Limited; Defendant / Appellant: Stephen John Clair
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Right of Way, Construction of Conveyance, Easements, Land Transfer, Planning Permission Conditions
Property Law Interpretation of Right of Way Construction of Conveyance Easements Land Transfer Planning Permission Conditions

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manor Farm Barns (Essington) Limited

Claimant / Respondent

Stephen John Clair

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the extent of the right of way granted to the appellant under the transfer?
  2. 2 Should the right of way be construed as extending over the whole of the blue area or only up to the gates?
  3. 3 Did the trial judge err in his construction of the transfer document?

Ratio Decidendi

The right of way granted to the appellant under the transfer is limited to that part of the Shared Driveway which leads up to the gates and no further; this construction is consistent with the language of the transfer, the plan, and the background circumstances. There is no basis to depart from the express wording or to construe the right of way as extending beyond the gates.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed