Banks v Blount [2022] EWHC 1491 (QB) (15 June 2022)

Banks v Blount [2022] EWHC 1491 (QB) (15 June 2022)

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's findings on the width of the right of way, the existence of substantial interference by the defendant, the assessment of damages, and the terms of the injunctions were all supported by evidence and correct in law. The defendant's grounds of appeal were found to be without merit.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1491 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: James Banks; Claimant/respondent: Helen Banks; Defendant/appellant: Gary Blount
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Easements, Injunctions, Damages, Appeals Procedure

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Banks

Claimant/respondent

Helen Banks

Claimant/respondent

Gary Blount

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision

  1. 1 Whether the defendant substantially interfered with the claimants' right of way by obstruction and failure to maintain.
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in defining the width of the right of way, particularly regarding verge space.
  3. 3 Whether the damages and injunctions awarded were appropriate and sufficiently specific.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's findings on the width of the right of way, the existence of substantial interference by the defendant, the assessment of damages, and the terms of the injunctions were all supported by evidence and correct in law. The defendant's grounds of appeal were found to be without merit.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed on all grounds.
  • Original injunctions and damages order upheld.