Loveluck-Edwards & Anor v Ideal Developments Ltd. & Anor [2012] EWHC 716 (Ch) (22 March 2012)

Loveluck-Edwards & Anor v Ideal Developments Ltd. & Anor [2012] EWHC 716 (Ch) (22 March 2012)

The claimants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimed right of way was enjoyed with Broadlands House at the date of the 1920 conveyance, or that it was used and enjoyed, continuous and apparent, or necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the land at that time. The evidence did not support implication under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows, or the principle in Pwllbach Colliery v Woodman. The claimants also failed to establish prescriptive acquisition, as the use was not shown to be as of right. Accordingly, no right of way exists in favour of the claimants over the defendants' land.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 716 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: William Ewart Loveluck-Edwards; Claimant: Beatrice Patricia Dawn Loveluck-Edwards; First Defendant/part 20 Defendant: Ideal Developments Limited; First Defendant/part 20 Defendant: Westbury Homes (Holdings) Limited; Second Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Richard Dean Dyke; Second Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Helen Louise Dyke
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Implied Easements, Prescription, Conveyancing, Lost Modern Grant
Property Law Easements Land Law Right of Way Implied Easements Prescription Conveyancing Lost Modern Grant

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Ewart Loveluck-Edwards

Claimant

Beatrice Patricia Dawn Loveluck-Edwards

Claimant

Ideal Developments Limited

First Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Westbury Homes (Holdings) Limited

First Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Richard Dean Dyke

Second Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Helen Louise Dyke

Second Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have a right of way over Broadlands Lane and the curtilage of Broadlands Fawr Farmhouse by express grant, implication, or prescription
  2. 2 Whether the right of way was enjoyed with the land at the time of the 1920 conveyance
  3. 3 Whether the right of way can be implied under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimed right of way was enjoyed with Broadlands House at the date of the 1920 conveyance, or that it was used and enjoyed, continuous and apparent, or necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the land at that time. The evidence did not support implication under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows, or the principle in Pwllbach Colliery v Woodman. The claimants also failed to establish prescriptive acquisition, as the use was not shown to be as of right. Accordingly, no right of way exists in favour of the claimants over the defendants' land.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants' claim for a right of way is dismissed
  • No injunction or damages awarded