Burras Otley Limited v Helen Johnson & Ors

Burras Otley Limited v Helen Johnson & Ors

The 1936 Conveyance did not reserve an immediately effective right of way over the land conveyed; the reservation was contingent on the construction of new roads and thus void for perpetuity. The 1937 Conveyance, by its different wording, did reserve an immediately effective right of way over the site of the proposed New Road as included in the land conveyed, and this right passed to the Claimant. The 1946 Conveyance did not express a contrary intention sufficient to exclude the operation of section 62(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, and thus the reserved rights continued to benefit the yellow land.

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
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Summary Judgment Order
Outcome
Appeal by Claimant dismissed; cross-appeal by Defendants dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Conveyances, Easements, Rights of Way, Rule Against Perpetuities, Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925
Property Law Land Law Interpretation of Conveyances Easements Rights of Way Rule Against Perpetuities Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925

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
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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Summary Judgment Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1936 and 1937 Conveyances reserved immediately effective rights of way over the land conveyed or only contingent rights dependent on construction of a new road
  2. 2 Whether the reservation of rights was void for perpetuity
  3. 3 Whether the 1946 Conveyance severed or limited any reserved rights over the yellow land

Ratio Decidendi

The 1936 Conveyance did not reserve an immediately effective right of way over the land conveyed; the reservation was contingent on the construction of new roads and thus void for perpetuity. The 1937 Conveyance, by its different wording, did reserve an immediately effective right of way over the site of the proposed New Road as included in the land conveyed, and this right passed to the Claimant. The 1946 Conveyance did not express a contrary intention sufficient to exclude the operation of section 62(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, and thus the reserved rights continued to benefit the yellow land.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Claimant dismissed; cross-appeal by Defendants dismissed.

Orders

  • Claimant's appeal against the declaration in paragraph 1 of the Order is dismissed.
  • Defendants' appeal against the declaration in paragraph 2 of the Order is dismissed.