McNulty v Ross [2015] NIQB 42 (15 May 2015)

McNulty v Ross [2015] NIQB 42 (15 May 2015)

The plaintiff failed to prove trespass as the disputed path and fence were constructed on land owned by the defendant, not the plaintiff. No prescriptive easements exist for swimming, sunbathing, fishing, water abstraction, or cattle access, as such activities were not reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant tenement and were carried out by permission or tolerance. Riparian rights do not entitle the plaintiff to abstract water from the lough, and no private or public right of way was established along the lough shore.

Citation
[2015] NIQB 42
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Joseph McNulty; Defendant/respondent: Donovan Ross
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
15 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Prescriptive Easements, Trespass, Public and Private Rights of Way, Riparian Ownership, Boundary Disputes
Property Law Easements Riparian Rights Prescriptive Easements Trespass Public and Private Rights of Way Riparian Ownership Boundary 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph McNulty

Plaintiff/appellant

Donovan Ross

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant trespassed on the plaintiff's land by constructing a path and fence
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has prescriptive easements for access, swimming, sunbathing, fishing, water abstraction, and cattle access to Eskragh Lough
  3. 3 Whether riparian rights entitle the plaintiff to access or abstract water from the lough

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove trespass as the disputed path and fence were constructed on land owned by the defendant, not the plaintiff. No prescriptive easements exist for swimming, sunbathing, fishing, water abstraction, or cattle access, as such activities were not reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant tenement and were carried out by permission or tolerance. Riparian rights do not entitle the plaintiff to abstract water from the lough, and no private or public right of way was established along the lough shore.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed
  • Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs