Johnsen v Johnsen & Ors

Johnsen v Johnsen & Ors

The order of 6 October 2006 does not, properly interpreted, require the respondents to grant a right of way over Plot A for the benefit of Plot B. There is no basis for implying such a term, nor is there power under CPR r40.12 or CPR r3.1(7) to amend the order to include it. The application fails.

Parties
Applicant/executor: John Paul Johnsen; Respondent: Gunnar Johnsen; Respondent: Mrs Rosemary Wilson; Respondent: Mr Alan Wilson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (trusts of Land/partition) / Ruling on Post Judgment Application to Perfect/amend Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Partition of Land, Implied Terms in Court Orders, Correction of Judgments (slip Rule), Variation/revocation of Orders, Easements and Rights of Way
Property Law Civil Procedure Trusts Partition of Land Implied Terms in Court Orders Correction of Judgments (slip Rule) Variation/revocation of Orders Easements and Rights of Way

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Paul Johnsen

Applicant/executor

Gunnar Johnsen

Respondent

Mrs Rosemary Wilson

Respondent

Mr Alan Wilson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (trusts of Land/partition) / Ruling on Post Judgment Application to Perfect/amend Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court's order of 6 October 2006 should be interpreted as requiring the grant of a right of way over Plot A for the benefit of Plot B
  2. 2 Whether the court has power under CPR r40.12 (slip rule) or CPR r3.1(7) to amend the order to include such a right of way

Ratio Decidendi

The order of 6 October 2006 does not, properly interpreted, require the respondents to grant a right of way over Plot A for the benefit of Plot B. There is no basis for implying such a term, nor is there power under CPR r40.12 or CPR r3.1(7) to amend the order to include it. The application fails.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed