Mitchell v Potter & Anor

Mitchell v Potter & Anor

The claimant is entitled to draw from the reservoir such an amount of water as may be reasonably required for domestic and farm purposes, subject to the sufficiency of supply, and the right is non-exclusive but not subordinate to the defendants' use. The words 'in common with the vendors and their successors in title' indicate non-exclusivity, not a right to the residue after the defendants' use.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: John Henry Mitchell; First Defendant/first Appellant: Yvonne Ruth Potter; Second Defendant/second Appellant: Alexander William Stuart Janes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Water Rights, Construction of Conveyance, Easements and Profits À Prendre
Property Law Water Rights Construction of Conveyance Easements and Profits À Prendre

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Henry Mitchell

Claimant/respondent

Yvonne Ruth Potter

First Defendant/first Appellant

Alexander William Stuart Janes

Second Defendant/second Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of grant of water rights in a conveyance
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to priority in drawing water from the reservoir over the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is entitled to draw from the reservoir such an amount of water as may be reasonably required for domestic and farm purposes, subject to the sufficiency of supply, and the right is non-exclusive but not subordinate to the defendants' use. The words 'in common with the vendors and their successors in title' indicate non-exclusivity, not a right to the residue after the defendants' use.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the respondent in a sum to be reduced from £6,041.20 by £475.00