Pezaro & Anor v Bourne & Anor

Pezaro & Anor v Bourne & Anor

The right of way was not extinguished by proprietary estoppel as against the Defendants. The Claimants’ informal agreement with the predecessor in title was not binding on the Defendants, who were bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The Claimants were not in actual occupation of the right of way for the purposes of Schedule 3, paragraph 2 of the Land Registration Act 2002. The right of way remains registered and enforceable.

Parties
Claimant: Sarah Jane Pezaro; Claimant: Carlton Gavin Pezaro; Defendant: Elizabeth Marion Bourne; Defendant: Richard Ross Bourne
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/estates / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Easements, Land Registration, Actual Occupation, Rectification of Register
Property Law Equity Proprietary Estoppel Easements Land Registration Actual Occupation Rectification of Register

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah Jane Pezaro

Claimant

Carlton Gavin Pezaro

Claimant

Elizabeth Marion Bourne

Defendant

Richard Ross Bourne

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/estates / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right of way over Numbers 149 and 151 New Street in favour of Number 147 was extinguished by proprietary estoppel due to actions of the predecessor in title
  2. 2 Whether the equity by estoppel is binding on successors in title under the Land Registration Act 2002
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants were in actual occupation of the right of way for the purposes of Schedule 3, paragraph 2 of the Land Registration Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The right of way was not extinguished by proprietary estoppel as against the Defendants. The Claimants’ informal agreement with the predecessor in title was not binding on the Defendants, who were bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The Claimants were not in actual occupation of the right of way for the purposes of Schedule 3, paragraph 2 of the Land Registration Act 2002. The right of way remains registered and enforceable.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim to have the right of way removed from the register is dismissed.
  • The right of way remains on the title unless and until some agreement is reached for its removal.