Price v Nunn [2023] EWHC 3200 (Ch) (19 December 2023)

Price v Nunn [2023] EWHC 3200 (Ch) (19 December 2023)

Mr Nunn is not estopped from advancing a claim to a private right of way over the Upper Track under section 67(5) of NERCA, as the prior estoppel and abuse of process findings related to the Lower Track and did not extend to the Upper Track or Pitch. The evidence supports that Route 3 under the Turnpike Act included the Upper Track and Pitch, which were not stopped up, and that as of May 2006, the Upper Track was a public right of way for mechanically propelled vehicles. Vehicular access over the Upper Track was reasonably necessary for access to Woodside Bungalow at that time. Mr Price has not established ownership of the Upper Track, either wholly or up to the centre line, and is not...

Citation
[2023] EWHC 3200 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Christopher Price; Defendant: Jonathan Nunn
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/right of Way Dispute / Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim succeeds in part
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Estoppel, Public and Private Rights of Way, Ownership of Unregistered Land, Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Turnpike Acts, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process
Property Law Civil Procedure Right of Way Estoppel Public and Private Rights of Way Ownership of Unregistered Land Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Turnpike Acts +2 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Price

Claimant

Jonathan Nunn

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/right of Way Dispute / Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is Mr Nunn estopped from claiming a private right of way under section 67(5) of NERCA due to prior decisions?
  2. 2 Did 'Route 3' under the Turnpike Act follow the Upper Track, Lower Track, and/or the Pitch?
  3. 3 Was the Upper Track a public right of way for mechanically propelled vehicles as at 2 May 2006 under NERCA?

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Nunn is not estopped from advancing a claim to a private right of way over the Upper Track under section 67(5) of NERCA, as the prior estoppel and abuse of process findings related to the Lower Track and did not extend to the Upper Track or Pitch. The evidence supports that Route 3 under the Turnpike Act included the Upper Track and Pitch, which were not stopped up, and that as of May 2006, the Upper Track was a public right of way for mechanically propelled vehicles. Vehicular access over the Upper Track was reasonably necessary for access to Woodside Bungalow at that time. Mr Price has not established ownership of the Upper Track, either wholly or up to the centre line, and is not...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim succeeds in part

Orders

  • Declaration that Mr Nunn has a private right of way for mechanically propelled vehicles over the Upper Track under section 67(5) of NERCA for the benefit of Woodside Bungalow.
  • Claim for ownership of the Upper Track by Mr Price dismissed.