Waterman & Anor v Boyle & Anor

Waterman & Anor v Boyle & Anor

The appeal was allowed because the judge below erred in implying an ancillary right to park for visitors where express parking rights existed, and in awarding damages for interference with access where the wall was not on the lane and did not substantially interfere with the right of access. The southern boundary...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Keith Waterman; Respondent: Wendy Waterman; Appellant: Duncan Boyle; Appellant: Maureen Gwilt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; respondents' notice dismissed.
Legal Topics
Easements, Boundary Disputes, Parking Rights, Right of Way, Nuisance
Property Law Easements Boundary Disputes Parking Rights Right of Way Nuisance

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Keith Waterman

Respondent

Wendy Waterman

Respondent

Duncan Boyle

Appellant

Maureen Gwilt

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Location of the southern boundary of 2, Hog Lane Farm
  2. 2 Whether the right of access included an ancillary right to park vehicles for visitors
  3. 3 Whether the construction of the Grooms Cottages wall interfered with the right of access

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the judge below erred in implying an ancillary right to park for visitors where express parking rights existed, and in awarding damages for interference with access where the wall was not on the lane and did not substantially interfere with the right of access. The southern boundary finding was upheld as a question of fact.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; respondents' notice dismissed.

Orders

  • Order for damages for substantial interference set aside.
  • No implied ancillary right to park for visitors on the northern drive.