Price & Anor v Nunn

Price & Anor v Nunn

Defendant is bound by issue estoppel preventing assertion of a private right of way over the lower track; Defendant may assert existence of a public right of way for purposes of defending trespass claims or seeking negative declaration; it is not an abuse of process for Defendant to assert a public right of way; Defendant’s claim that future interference would constitute public nuisance should not be struck out; Defendant to pay 1/3 of Claimants’ costs of strike out application; Claimants to pay Defendant’s costs of hearing on 6 December 2011; Claimants entitled to costs of defending private right of way claim, subject to assessment.

Parties
Claimant: Christopher Charles Price; Claimant: Charles Frederick Price; Defendant: Jonathan James Nunn
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment, Determination of Consequential Matters and Costs
Outcome
Defendant’s claim to private right of way over lower track struck out; declarations made as per judgment; costs orders as specified; permission to appeal refused to both parties; stay pending any application to Court of Appeal.
Legal Topics
Issue Estoppel, Cause of Action Estoppel, Public Right of Way, Private Right of Way, Abuse of Process, Costs, Permission to Appeal
Property Law Civil Procedure Issue Estoppel Cause of Action Estoppel Public Right of Way Private Right of Way Abuse of Process Costs +1 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Charles Price

Claimant

Charles Frederick Price

Claimant

Jonathan James Nunn

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment, Determination of Consequential Matters and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is estopped from asserting a private right of way over the lower track
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant can assert a public right of way over the lower track
  3. 3 Whether it is an abuse of process for the Defendant to assert a public right of way

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant is bound by issue estoppel preventing assertion of a private right of way over the lower track; Defendant may assert existence of a public right of way for purposes of defending trespass claims or seeking negative declaration; it is not an abuse of process for Defendant to assert a public right of way; Defendant’s claim that future interference would constitute public nuisance should not be struck out; Defendant to pay 1/3 of Claimants’ costs of strike out application; Claimants to pay Defendant’s costs of hearing on 6 December 2011; Claimants entitled to costs of defending private right of way claim, subject to assessment.

Court Disposition

Defendant’s claim to private right of way over lower track struck out; declarations made as per judgment; costs orders as specified; permission to appeal refused to both parties; stay pending any application to Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • Declaration of issue estoppel binding Defendant regarding private right of way over lower track
  • Declaration that no estoppel prevents Defendant asserting existence of public right of way over lower track