Morgan v Heaven [2022] JRC 060 (04 March 2022)

Morgan v Heaven [2022] JRC 060 (04 March 2022)

Neither the walled patio nor the parking of vehicles by the Defendants constitute an unlawful encroachment onto the Plaintiff's right of way, as access to the garage and field is still possible, and the Defendants' use of their land does not impede the Plaintiff's rights beyond what is permissible. Ancillary rights of manoeuvre are implied, but the Plaintiff's complaints do not establish breach. Ambiguities are resolved in favour of the servient tenement.

Citation
[2022] JRC 060
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendants: Defendants
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
04 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Property Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims for removal of patio, restoration, and injunction denied; damages awarded for interference during building works.
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Encroachment, Ancillary Rights, Interpretation of Deeds
Property Law Servitudes Right of Way Encroachment Ancillary Rights Interpretation of Deeds

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

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendants

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Property Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the construction of a walled patio and parking of vehicles by the Defendants constitute unlawful encroachment of the Plaintiff's right of way
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to removal of the patio and restoration of land
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction prohibiting parking except as set out in a draft Contract of Arrangement

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the walled patio nor the parking of vehicles by the Defendants constitute an unlawful encroachment onto the Plaintiff's right of way, as access to the garage and field is still possible, and the Defendants' use of their land does not impede the Plaintiff's rights beyond what is permissible. Ancillary rights of manoeuvre are implied, but the Plaintiff's complaints do not establish breach. Ambiguities are resolved in favour of the servient tenement.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims for removal of patio, restoration, and injunction denied; damages awarded for interference during building works.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Plaintiff £1,000 in damages for interference with right of way during building works.
  • If parties do not agree on costs, Court will hear argument.