Akhtar & Ors v Khan & Ors [2024] EWHC 1519 (Ch) (17 June 2024)

Akhtar & Ors v Khan & Ors [2024] EWHC 1519 (Ch) (17 June 2024)

The claimants failed to establish a prescriptive easement over Triangular Strip 1 as their use was not as of right for the requisite period; the defendants' counterclaims for prescriptive easements (parking and access) also failed due to lack of continuous, as of right use. The claims for trespass, nuisance, assault, battery, and harassment were not made out on the balance of probabilities. The evidence was inconsistent, unreliable, and not corroborated by contemporaneous documents. No damages or injunctive relief were awarded.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1519 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mohammed Sheraz Akhtar; Claimant: Mohammed Eyarz Akhtar; Claimant: Mohammed Surfraz; Claimant: Amina Bibi; Defendant: Mohammed Ali Khan; Defendant: Zia Khan; Defendant: Bilal Khan; Defendant: Sajid Khan; Defendant: Majid Khan; Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (property and Trusts) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
All claims and counterclaims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Prescriptive Easements, Trespass, Nuisance, Assault and Battery, Harassment, Injunctions, Damages
Property Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Prescriptive Easements Trespass Nuisance Assault and Battery Harassment +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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Sheraz Akhtar

Claimant

Mohammed Eyarz Akhtar

Claimant

Mohammed Surfraz

Claimant

Amina Bibi

Claimant

Mohammed Ali Khan

Defendant

Zia Khan

Defendant

Bilal Khan

Defendant

Sajid Khan

Defendant

Majid Khan

Defendant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (property and Trusts) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have acquired a prescriptive easement (right of way) over the Triangular Strip 1.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants have acquired prescriptive easements to park cars within the Yard and to access/egress via the Side Door.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants committed trespass, nuisance, assault, battery, and harassment against the claimants.

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish a prescriptive easement over Triangular Strip 1 as their use was not as of right for the requisite period; the defendants' counterclaims for prescriptive easements (parking and access) also failed due to lack of continuous, as of right use. The claims for trespass, nuisance, assault, battery, and harassment were not made out on the balance of probabilities. The evidence was inconsistent, unreliable, and not corroborated by contemporaneous documents. No damages or injunctive relief were awarded.

Court Disposition

All claims and counterclaims dismissed.

Orders

  • No prescriptive easement declared for either party.
  • No damages or injunctive relief awarded.