Jones v Scott

Jones v Scott

The claimant failed to prove 20 years' user of the hard standing prior to commencement of proceedings, as the court preferred the evidence that a wall existed until 1987, preventing such use. Therefore, no prescriptive right of way was established and the claim was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Howard Rhys Jones; Defendant: Chris Rosalind Scott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed, defendant granted declaratory relief, defendant's damages claim dismissed, costs to defendant
Legal Topics
Easements, Prescription, Right of Way, Trespass, Declaratory Relief
Property Law Easements Prescription Right of Way Trespass Declaratory Relief

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Howard Rhys Jones

Claimant

Chris Rosalind Scott

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant and his predecessors were capable of physically using the hard standing for the requisite period of 20 years before commencement of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the claimant and his predecessors actually used the hard standing for the requisite period of 20 years
  3. 3 What relief either party is entitled to in respect of the hard standing

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove 20 years' user of the hard standing prior to commencement of proceedings, as the court preferred the evidence that a wall existed until 1987, preventing such use. Therefore, no prescriptive right of way was established and the claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed, defendant granted declaratory relief, defendant's damages claim dismissed, costs to defendant

Orders

  • The Claimant's claim is dismissed.
  • It is declared that the Claimant's property does not have the benefit of any right of way or other right over the Defendant's property, in particular over the hard standing.