Easteye Ltd v Malhotra Property Investments Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 2606 (Ch) (01 June 2020)

Easteye Ltd v Malhotra Property Investments Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 2606 (Ch) (01 June 2020)

The evidence does not establish the existence of public rights of way over White Hart Yard or Ship's Entry, either at common law or under s.31 Highways Act 1980. The historic and modern user, documentary evidence, and expert testimony do not demonstrate uninterrupted public use as of right or intention to dedicate. The statutory and private law claims for rights of way by Malhotra companies fail except for limited drainage and fire escape rights previously agreed. Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925 and Wheeldon v Burrows do not operate to grant private rights of way over Ship's Entry to owners of 11-13 Grey Street.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2606 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Easteye Limited; First Defendant: Malhotra Property Investments Limited; Second Defendant: Malhotra Property Limited; Third Defendant: PFS (Newcastle) Limited; Third Party: The Council of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Claims for public and private rights of way over White Hart Yard and Ship's Entry dismissed except for limited drainage and fire escape rights.
Legal Topics
Public and Private Rights of Way, Implied Dedication, Statutory Dedication, Easements, Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925, Wheeldon V Burrows Rule
Property Law Trusts Highways Law Public and Private Rights of Way Implied Dedication Statutory Dedication Easements Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925 +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Easteye Limited

Claimant

Malhotra Property Investments Limited

First Defendant

Malhotra Property Limited

Second Defendant

PFS (Newcastle) Limited

Third Defendant

The Council of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Existence of public rights of way over White Hart Yard and Ship's Entry
  2. 2 Existence of private rights of way for owners of 11-13 Grey Street over Ship's Entry
  3. 3 Statutory dedication under s.31 Highways Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence does not establish the existence of public rights of way over White Hart Yard or Ship's Entry, either at common law or under s.31 Highways Act 1980. The historic and modern user, documentary evidence, and expert testimony do not demonstrate uninterrupted public use as of right or intention to dedicate. The statutory and private law claims for rights of way by Malhotra companies fail except for limited drainage and fire escape rights previously agreed. Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925 and Wheeldon v Burrows do not operate to grant private rights of way over Ship's Entry to owners of 11-13 Grey Street.

Court Disposition

Claims for public and private rights of way over White Hart Yard and Ship's Entry dismissed except for limited drainage and fire escape rights.

Orders

  • No public rights of way exist over White Hart Yard or Ship's Entry.
  • Private rights of way for owners of 11-13 Grey Street over Ship's Entry not established.