Lea v Ward [2017] EWHC 2231 (Ch) (06 September 2017)

Lea v Ward [2017] EWHC 2231 (Ch) (06 September 2017)

The right of way granted under the 1979 Deed is limited to the width and location of the discernible track as it existed at the date of the Deed, not the whole width of the Strip. The Defendant's erection of Heras fencing temporarily obstructed the right of way and constituted a nuisance, but the interference was not permanent. The physical structures erected by the Defendant do not substantially interfere with the reasonable exercise of the right of way as defined. The Claimant is entitled to nominal damages for the temporary obstruction but not to a mandatory injunction for removal of the structures or further injunctive relief.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2231 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Charles William Michael Lea; Defendant: David Anthony Ward
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Property Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim partly allowed
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Nuisance, Injunctions, Damages, Interpretation of Deeds
Property Law Easements Land Law Right of Way Nuisance Injunctions Damages Interpretation of Deeds

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles William Michael Lea

Claimant

David Anthony Ward

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the width and precise location of the right of way granted under the 1979 Deed?
  2. 2 Was the right of way substantially obstructed by the Defendant's Heras fencing in 2015, constituting a nuisance?
  3. 3 Is the Claimant entitled to damages for nuisance and/or a mandatory injunction to remove obstructions?

Ratio Decidendi

The right of way granted under the 1979 Deed is limited to the width and location of the discernible track as it existed at the date of the Deed, not the whole width of the Strip. The Defendant's erection of Heras fencing temporarily obstructed the right of way and constituted a nuisance, but the interference was not permanent. The physical structures erected by the Defendant do not substantially interfere with the reasonable exercise of the right of way as defined. The Claimant is entitled to nominal damages for the temporary obstruction but not to a mandatory injunction for removal of the structures or further injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed

Orders

  • Declaration as to the width and location of the right of way as per the judgment
  • Nominal damages awarded for temporary obstruction by Heras fencing