Well Barn Shoot Ltd & Anor v Shackleton & Anor

Well Barn Shoot Ltd & Anor v Shackleton & Anor

The right of way granted by the transfer is limited to the track as shown on the plan, but includes by necessary implication a right of access to the blue field at point A, with a gate of reasonable width for agricultural vehicles. Rectification to include a wider right of way over the verges was not justified, as there was no common or unilateral mistake extending that far. The proposed development, subject to the agreed undertakings and covenants, would not cause substantial interference with the claimants' sporting rights. The grant of a negative declaration was appropriate in the circumstances to resolve the dispute and enable development to proceed.

Parties
Appellant: Well Barn Shoot Limited; Appellant: Well Barn Farming Limited; Respondent: Gerald Henry Shackleton; Respondent: Alan Michael Robert Shackleton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division, High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Easements and Rights of Way, Sporting Rights, Rectification of Instruments, Negative Declarations, Restrictive Covenants
Property Law Land Law Easements and Rights of Way Sporting Rights Rectification of Instruments Negative Declarations Restrictive Covenants

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Well Barn Shoot Limited

Appellant

Well Barn Farming Limited

Appellant

Gerald Henry Shackleton

Respondent

Alan Michael Robert Shackleton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division, High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have a right of way over the track and verges to access the blue field
  2. 2 Whether the transfer should be rectified to include a wider right of way
  3. 3 Whether the proposed residential development would substantially interfere with the claimants' sporting rights

Ratio Decidendi

The right of way granted by the transfer is limited to the track as shown on the plan, but includes by necessary implication a right of access to the blue field at point A, with a gate of reasonable width for agricultural vehicles. Rectification to include a wider right of way over the verges was not justified, as there was no common or unilateral mistake extending that far. The proposed development, subject to the agreed undertakings and covenants, would not cause substantial interference with the claimants' sporting rights. The grant of a negative declaration was appropriate in the circumstances to resolve the dispute and enable development to proceed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court affirmed, including undertakings and covenants by the respondents regarding fencing, construction timing, and non-interference with sporting rights.
  • Declaration that the claimants have a right of way at all times and for all purposes with or without vehicles over the track and necessary verge at point A.