Page v Convoy Investments Ltd

Page v Convoy Investments Ltd

The omission of the T mark in the transfer was a correctable error; the white fence was the boundary structure referred to in the transfer, 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 electronic gates constituted a substantial interference with Mr Page’s right of way. The expert’s plan should be used to define the extent of the right of way.

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 After Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Boundary Disputes, Easements, Trespass
Property Law Land Law Right of Way Boundary Disputes Easements Trespass

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 After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the true scope and extent of the roadway over which the right of way was granted to Mr Page in 2000?
  2. 2 Can Mr Page enter lot 1 from any point on the roadway, or only at a certain point?
  3. 3 Are the electronic gates installed by Convoy a substantial interference with Mr Page’s right of way?

Ratio Decidendi

The omission of the T mark in the transfer was a correctable error; the white fence was the boundary structure referred to in the transfer, 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 electronic gates constituted a substantial interference with Mr Page’s right of way. The expert’s plan should be used to define the extent of the right of way.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal allowed on the construction of clause 13.4, boundary position, ownership of the white fence, access points to lot 1, and ownership of the southern gate pier.
  • Appeal allowed on the method of defining the land over which the right of way is exercisable (to be by reference to the expert’s plan).