Konstantinidis v Townsend
There is no general obligation on co-users of an easement to contribute to maintenance or repair costs in the absence of express agreement, covenant, or special circumstances justifying a quasi-contractual obligation. The Recorder's declaration, which imposed a future obligation on all users, was not justified by law and must be set aside.
- Parties
- Respondent/claimant: Raymond Konstantinidis; Appellant/defendant: Philip Giles Townsend
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 20 March 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; declaration set aside
- Legal Topics
- Obligation to Contribute to Maintenance of Easement, Quasi Contract, Benefit and Burden Principle
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Raymond Konstantinidis
Respondent/claimant
Philip Giles Townsend
Appellant/defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a co-user of a borehole easement is obliged to contribute to maintenance and repair costs in the absence of express agreement or covenant
- 2 Whether such an obligation can be implied by quasi-contract or the benefit and burden principle
Ratio Decidendi
There is no general obligation on co-users of an easement to contribute to maintenance or repair costs in the absence of express agreement, covenant, or special circumstances justifying a quasi-contractual obligation. The Recorder's declaration, which imposed a future obligation on all users, was not justified by law and must be set aside.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; declaration set aside
Orders
- The declaration made by the Recorder is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment