Bradley & Anor v Heslin & Anor

Bradley & Anor v Heslin & Anor

The Bradleys own both pillars and the gates by a combination of boundary demarcation, adverse possession, and proprietary estoppel. However, they have not acquired a legal easement to close the gates at all times and for all purposes by prescription or lost modern grant, as the user was not of the requisite quality. They have an equitable right to close and open the gates for all purposes connected with the reasonable enjoyment of No.40, provided such use does not substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of No.40A.

Parties
Claimant: Martin Harry Bradley; Claimant: Rosemary Diane Bradley; Defendant: Peter Greenwood Heslin; Defendant: Marianne Heslin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Declarations granted in part; injunction against padlocking the gate open; no full easement declared.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Proprietary Estoppel, Easements, Boundary Disputes, Neighbour Disputes
Property Law Land Law Adverse Possession Proprietary Estoppel Easements Boundary Disputes Neighbour Disputes

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Harry Bradley

Claimant

Rosemary Diane Bradley

Claimant

Peter Greenwood Heslin

Defendant

Marianne Heslin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Ownership of driveway pillars and gates between No.40 and No.40A Freshfield Road
  2. 2 Right to close and open gates across shared driveway
  3. 3 Acquisition of rights by adverse possession, proprietary estoppel, or prescription

Ratio Decidendi

The Bradleys own both pillars and the gates by a combination of boundary demarcation, adverse possession, and proprietary estoppel. However, they have not acquired a legal easement to close the gates at all times and for all purposes by prescription or lost modern grant, as the user was not of the requisite quality. They have an equitable right to close and open the gates for all purposes connected with the reasonable enjoyment of No.40, provided such use does not substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of No.40A.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted in part; injunction against padlocking the gate open; no full easement declared.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Bradleys own both pillars and the gates.
  • Declaration that the Bradleys have a right to close and open the gates for all purposes connected with the reasonable enjoyment of No.40, provided such use does not substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of No.40A.