Stanning v Baldwin & Anor [2019] EWHC 1350 (Ch) (29 May 2019)

Stanning v Baldwin & Anor [2019] EWHC 1350 (Ch) (29 May 2019)

The legal boundary lies as shown on the claimant's title plan, with the bund within the claimant's land; the right of way accommodates construction and subsequent use for four dwellings, as the proposed use is not self-evidently excessive and does not involve a radical change or substantial increase in burden; defendants' claim to adverse possession fails due to lack of evidence of possession or intention; drainage easement exists by prescription.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1350 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Glynis Elizabeth Stanning; Defendant: David Reginald Baldwin; Defendant: Katharine Mary Fullarton Barber
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Property Boundary and Easement Dispute / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claimant's claims succeed; defendants' counterclaims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Boundary Determination, Right of Way, Drainage Easement, Adverse Possession
Property Law Easements Land Registration Boundary Determination Right of Way Drainage Easement Adverse Possession

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glynis Elizabeth Stanning

Claimant

David Reginald Baldwin

Defendant

Katharine Mary Fullarton Barber

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Property Boundary and Easement Dispute / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Position of legal boundary between Coach House and Gerrards Cross Common
  2. 2 Scope of right of way over the Track for development purposes
  3. 3 Existence and extent of drainage easement

Ratio Decidendi

The legal boundary lies as shown on the claimant's title plan, with the bund within the claimant's land; the right of way accommodates construction and subsequent use for four dwellings, as the proposed use is not self-evidently excessive and does not involve a radical change or substantial increase in burden; defendants' claim to adverse possession fails due to lack of evidence of possession or intention; drainage easement exists by prescription.

Court Disposition

Claimant's claims succeed; defendants' counterclaims dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the legal boundary is as shown on claimant's title plan.
  • Declaration that claimant has right of way over the Track sufficient for construction and use of four dwellings.