Thurloe Lodge Ltd v Amberwood Drive Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 1133 (Ch) (29 April 2021)

Thurloe Lodge Ltd v Amberwood Drive Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 1133 (Ch) (29 April 2021)

The applications for summary judgment are dismissed because the issues of prescription and the operation of section 62 involve factual and evidential questions unsuitable for summary determination. The evidence as to user, interruption, and the effect of the covenant against obstruction requires a full trial. The Claimant's case is not fanciful and has a real prospect of success; therefore, summary judgment is inappropriate.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1133 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Thurloe Lodge Limited; First Defendant: Amberwood Drive Limited; Second Defendant: Prime London Holdings 11 Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (property, Trusts and Probate) / Summary Judgment Application by Defendants
Outcome
Defendants' applications for summary judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Prescription, Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925, Summary Judgment, Interim Injunction, Parking and Loading Rights, Covenant Against Obstruction
Property Law Easements Trusts and Probate Right of Way Prescription Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925 Summary Judgment Interim Injunction +2 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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thurloe Lodge Limited

Claimant

Amberwood Drive Limited

First Defendant

Prime London Holdings 11 Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (property, Trusts and Probate) / Summary Judgment Application by Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant has rights to park, load and unload on the Roadway beyond the express right to pass and repass
  2. 2 Whether such rights arise by prescription or by operation of section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925
  3. 3 Whether the covenant against obstruction in the 1972 lease precludes such rights

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for summary judgment are dismissed because the issues of prescription and the operation of section 62 involve factual and evidential questions unsuitable for summary determination. The evidence as to user, interruption, and the effect of the covenant against obstruction requires a full trial. The Claimant's case is not fanciful and has a real prospect of success; therefore, summary judgment is inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications for summary judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Applications for summary judgment refused
  • Costs and further directions to be determined separately