Taylor v Burton & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 21 (23 January 2014)

Taylor v Burton & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 21 (23 January 2014)

The judge's finding of substantial interference with the right of way was supported by evidence and not perverse; the conventional order as to costs of amendments should apply; the costs of the interim injunction should not have been awarded to the claimants as the relevant condition was not satisfied; the overall costs order was within the judge's discretion and not irrational.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 21
Parties
Appellant/defendant: David Michael John Taylor; Respondent/claimant: Paul Arthur Burton; Respondent/claimant: Janette Anne Burton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Easements, Prescription, Damages, Costs, Injunctions, Rectification of Title
Property Law Civil Procedure Right of Way Easements Prescription Damages Costs Injunctions +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Michael John Taylor

Appellant/defendant

Paul Arthur Burton

Respondent/claimant

Janette Anne Burton

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the realignment of the right of way by the defendant constituted substantial interference with the claimants' easement
  2. 2 Whether the claimants acquired a right of way by prescription over additional land ('black land')
  3. 3 Proper assessment of damages for interference with right of way

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's finding of substantial interference with the right of way was supported by evidence and not perverse; the conventional order as to costs of amendments should apply; the costs of the interim injunction should not have been awarded to the claimants as the relevant condition was not satisfied; the overall costs order was within the judge's discretion and not irrational.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Ground 2 (substantial interference) dismissed; judge's finding upheld.
  • Ground 5 (costs of amendment) allowed; claimants to bear costs of and occasioned by amendment.