Page v Convoy Investments Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1061 (11 November 2015)

Page v Convoy Investments Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1061 (11 November 2015)

The omission of the T mark on the plan was an error that could be corrected as a matter of construction; the white fence was the boundary structure referred to in the conveyance, and ownership remained with Convoy. Mr Page's right of way did not entitle him to remove the fence or access lot 1 at any point along the roadway where the fence existed in 2000. The installation of the electronic gates constituted a substantial interference with Mr Page's right of way, as the comparison should be with the previous position without gates, not with hypothetical manually operated gates.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 1061
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Adam Stoddart Page; Defendant/appellant: Convoy Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Boundary Disputes, Trespass, Interpretation of Conveyance, Substantial Interference With Easement
Property Law Easements Land Law Right of Way Boundary Disputes Trespass Interpretation of Conveyance Substantial Interference With Easement

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam Stoddart Page

Claimant/respondent

Convoy Investments Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the scope and extent of the right of way granted to Mr Page?
  2. 2 Can Mr Page enter lot 1 from any point on the roadway or only at certain points?
  3. 3 Do the electronic gates installed by Convoy constitute a substantial interference with Mr Page's right of way?

Ratio Decidendi

The omission of the T mark on the plan was an error that could be corrected as a matter of construction; the white fence was the boundary structure referred to in the conveyance, and ownership remained with Convoy. Mr Page's right of way did not entitle him to remove the fence or access lot 1 at any point along the roadway where the fence existed in 2000. The installation of the electronic gates constituted a substantial interference with Mr Page's right of way, as the comparison should be with the previous position without gates, not with hypothetical manually operated gates.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed on the position of the boundary, ownership of the white fence as it stood in 2000, points of access to lot 1, and ownership of the land on which the southern gate pier stands.
  • Appeal allowed on the method of defining the land over which the right of way is exercisable (reference to expert's plan to be used).