Konstantinidis v Townsend

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Konstantinidis

Respondent/claimant

Philip Giles Townsend

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision

  1. 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. 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.