Davill v Pull & Anor

The phrase 'for all reasonable and usual purposes' in the grant of the right of way does not limit the use of the track to garden or allotment purposes but permits its use for any purpose that is reasonable and usual from time to time, including residential development and occupation, provided the use is not unreasonable or unusual.

Parties: Appellant: Norman Davill; Respondent: Clive Pull; Respondent: Marion Pearl Sanderson
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 10 December 2009
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Interpretation of Express Grants, Scope of Rights of Way, Limitation of Easements, Residential Development Access

Property Law Easements Interpretation of Express Grants Scope of Rights of Way Limitation of Easements Residential Development Access

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 7 Party arguments 2

Parties

Norman Davill

Appellant

Clive Pull

Respondent

Marion Pearl Sanderson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the express grant of a right of way 'for all reasonable and usual purposes' over a track appurtenant to plots described as 'garden ground' limits the use of the track to garden/allotment purposes or permits access for residential development and occupation.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

Judge's order set aside
Declaration to be substituted reflecting the court's conclusion that the right of way may be used for all reasonable and usual purposes, including residential development and occupation