Kingsgate Development Projects Ltd v Jordan & Anor

Kingsgate Development Projects Ltd v Jordan & Anor

The true boundary is 27 feet from the old hedge line as shown on the agreed plan Rev C. The right of way is as plotted by the experts on Rev C, shaded blue. There was no substantial interference with the right of way except for the installation of Gate no. 2, which, together with the obstruction at Bend C, constituted actionable interference. The other gates and alleged obstructions did not amount to substantial interference. Damages claimed by Kingsgate were not proven except for nominal damages. The Defendants were entitled to damages for the removal of their gate.

Parties
Claimant: Kingsgate Development Projects Limited; Defendant: Mr Peter James Jordan; Defendant: Mrs Joy Mary Jordan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Land/property Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim and counterclaim both partially succeed; declarations and injunction granted; nominal damages to Claimant; damages to Defendants.
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Boundary Dispute, Nuisance, Damages
Property Law Easements Land Law Right of Way Boundary Dispute Nuisance Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kingsgate Development Projects Limited

Claimant

Mr Peter James Jordan

Defendant

Mrs Joy Mary Jordan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Land/property Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct boundary between Ferndown and Kingsgate Farm?
  2. 2 What is the route and extent of the right of way?
  3. 3 Has there been a substantial interference with the right of way?

Ratio Decidendi

The true boundary is 27 feet from the old hedge line as shown on the agreed plan Rev C. The right of way is as plotted by the experts on Rev C, shaded blue. There was no substantial interference with the right of way except for the installation of Gate no. 2, which, together with the obstruction at Bend C, constituted actionable interference. The other gates and alleged obstructions did not amount to substantial interference. Damages claimed by Kingsgate were not proven except for nominal damages. The Defendants were entitled to damages for the removal of their gate.

Court Disposition

Claim and counterclaim both partially succeed; declarations and injunction granted; nominal damages to Claimant; damages to Defendants.

Orders

  • Declaration that the boundary of Ferndown is the line marked on Rev C as 27 feet from the old hedge line.
  • Declaration that the right of way is as shown on Rev C shaded blue.