South Tees Development Corporation & Anor v PD Teesport Limited
[2024] EWHC 842 (Ch)
Centaur Property Estates Limited & Anor v Larry Thornton Scott & Ors
26 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 127 (Ch)
High Court
Two neighbours fought over a right of way and parking. A judge initially gave one neighbour a limited right of way, but a higher court gave them a full right of way. There were lots of arguments about the details, but the higher court sorted it all out, making sure both neighbours had clear rights. The court also decided who would pay the legal costs.
Key Facts
- •Neighbour dispute concerning a right of way and parking spaces.
- •Initial judgment handed down in July 2022, followed by further judgments on relief and costs.
- •Appeal and cross-appeal heard in October 2023.
- •Parties failed to agree on the form of order after the appeal judgment.
- •Disputes arose over the scope of the right of way and parking rights.
- •Arguments concerning the applicability of Copeland v Greenhalf [1952] Ch 488 and Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42.
Legal Principles
Easements and their scope.
Copeland v Greenhalf [1952] Ch 488; Gale on Easements 21st ed (2020) at 9-123 to 9-132; Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42; Emmett & Farrand on Title (2023 ed) Vol 4, 17.050 to 17.054.
Estoppel and the grant of rights of way.
Case law referenced throughout the judgment (particularly in relation to the Judge's findings of fact and the appeal decisions).
Costs orders under CPR Part 44.2.
CPR Part 44.2(6)(f), CPR Part 44.2(7), Civil Procedure (2023 ed) Vol 1 44.2.10 (p.1361)
Outcomes
Defendants' cross-appeal against the declaration in paragraph 1 of the December Order allowed; declaration falls away.
The court's determination of the appeal.
Defendants' appeal against paragraphs 2 and 3 dismissed; Judge's finding that Centaur was entitled to a right of way by estoppel upheld.
The court's determination of the appeal.
Centaur's appeal allowed; Judge's framing of relief deemed erroneous; unconditional right of way granted instead of a limited right.
The Judge fell into error in framing the relief; an unconditional right of way should have been granted rather than a limited right.
Right of way extended to Mr. Blackman.
No reason to prevent Mr Blackman from permitting the occupier of No 84 Lee High Road to use the right of way.
Issues-based costs order made.
Impractical to make a proportional costs order due to complexity and lack of cost breakdown; follows the event as far as possible.