Christopher Price v Jonathan Nunn

Christopher Price v Jonathan Nunn

Mr Nunn is not entitled to a private vehicular right of way over the Upper Track under section 67(5) of NERCA because it was not established on the balance of probabilities that the Upper Track formed part of a public vehicular highway connected to the turnpike road prior to 1800, nor that such a highway was not lawfully stopped up. Mr Price does not own the whole of the Upper Track but is entitled to ownership up to the centre line (ad medium filum), with the other half presumed to be owned by the adjoining landowners. Estoppel and res judicata do not bar the parties' claims in the circumstances of this case.

Parties
Claimant: Christopher Price; Defendant: Jonathan Nunn
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/chancery / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claimant succeeds in part; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Estoppel, Ownership of Land, Highways, Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Res Judicata, Ad Medium Filum, Conveyancing
Property Law Civil Procedure Right of Way Estoppel Ownership of Land Highways Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Res Judicata +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Price

Claimant

Jonathan Nunn

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/chancery / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to a private vehicular right of way over the Upper Track under section 67(5) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERCA)
  2. 2 Whether the Upper Track forms part of a former public vehicular highway extinguished under NERCA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant owns the Upper Track (in whole or part)

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Nunn is not entitled to a private vehicular right of way over the Upper Track under section 67(5) of NERCA because it was not established on the balance of probabilities that the Upper Track formed part of a public vehicular highway connected to the turnpike road prior to 1800, nor that such a highway was not lawfully stopped up. Mr Price does not own the whole of the Upper Track but is entitled to ownership up to the centre line (ad medium filum), with the other half presumed to be owned by the adjoining landowners. Estoppel and res judicata do not bar the parties' claims in the circumstances of this case.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds in part; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that Mr Price owns half of the Upper Track up to its centre line.
  • Declaration that Mr Nunn does not have a private right of way for vehicles over the Upper Track under section 67(5) NERCA.