Williams v Johnson [2015] EW Misc B45 (CC) (14 December 2015)

Williams v Johnson [2015] EW Misc B45 (CC) (14 December 2015)

The boundary is as depicted in Mr Barker's plan number 3; the first defendant's use of gate 2 was permissive, not as of right; the first defendant breached restrictive covenants by erecting two new sheds and letting part of Lychcroft to a market gardener; estoppel is not established; damages rather than injunction are appropriate for past breaches; nominal damages awarded for buildings, substantial damages for user; no injunctive relief granted for past breaches but warning given for future conduct.

Citation
[2015] EW Misc B45 (CC)
Parties
Claimant: Richard Marcus Williams; First Defendant: Henry Dennis Johnson; Defendant: Ian Johnson; Relevant Person: Andrew Green
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Property Dispute / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim partly allowed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Boundary Disputes, Right of Way, Nuisance, Estoppel, Land Drainage, Harassment, Trespass
Property Law Equity Contract Law Tort Law Restrictive Covenants Boundary Disputes Right of Way Nuisance +4 more

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

Parties

Richard Marcus Williams

Claimant

Henry Dennis Johnson

First Defendant

Ian Johnson

Defendant

Andrew Green

Relevant Person

Procedural Posture

Civil Property Dispute / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Boundary determination between Wells Farm and Lychcroft
  2. 2 Existence and scope of right of way
  3. 3 Enforcement and breach of restrictive covenants (buildings, user, nuisance)

Ratio Decidendi

The boundary is as depicted in Mr Barker's plan number 3; the first defendant's use of gate 2 was permissive, not as of right; the first defendant breached restrictive covenants by erecting two new sheds and letting part of Lychcroft to a market gardener; estoppel is not established; damages rather than injunction are appropriate for past breaches; nominal damages awarded for buildings, substantial damages for user; no injunctive relief granted for past breaches but warning given for future conduct.

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that boundary is as depicted in Mr Barker's plan number 3
  • Order for defendants to remove gate 2, new seven-bar galvanised iron gate, and new four-bar wooden fence south of boundary line