Burras Otley Ltd v Johnson & Ors [2023] EWHC 2022 (Ch) (03 August 2023)

Burras Otley Ltd v Johnson & Ors [2023] EWHC 2022 (Ch) (03 August 2023)

The reservations in both the 1936 and 1937 Conveyances were contingent on the construction of future roads and not immediately effective. The language used did not reserve an immediate right of way over the land conveyed or the site of the proposed New Road. Therefore, the intended reservations were void for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2022 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Burras Otley Limited; Defendant: Helen Johnson; Defendant: Peter Francis Swann; Defendant: Annie Swann; Defendant: Graham Newall; Defendant: Anne Newall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Order
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Conveyances, Easements, Rights of Way, Rule Against Perpetuities, Land Registration
Property Law Land Law Interpretation of Conveyances Easements Rights of Way Rule Against Perpetuities Land Registration

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Burras Otley Limited

Claimant

Helen Johnson

Defendant

Peter Francis Swann

Defendant

Annie Swann

Defendant

Graham Newall

Defendant

Anne Newall

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1936 Conveyance reserved an immediately effective right of way over the land conveyed
  2. 2 Whether the 1937 Conveyance reserved an effective right of way over the site of the New Road
  3. 3 Whether any reserved rights were severed from the yellow land by the 1946 Conveyance

Ratio Decidendi

The reservations in both the 1936 and 1937 Conveyances were contingent on the construction of future roads and not immediately effective. The language used did not reserve an immediate right of way over the land conveyed or the site of the proposed New Road. Therefore, the intended reservations were void for perpetuity and did not confer rights of way to the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No effective rights of way reserved in favour of the Claimant under the 1936 or 1937 Conveyances
  • Declarations as per the original order of Deputy District Judge Jonathan Rodger upheld