CHIA-HSING WANG v FLOREAT PRIVATE LIMITED
[2023] EWHC 1123 (Comm)
Stephen Pincus v Sandeep Singh Johal & Anor
8 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 502 (Ch)
High Court
Someone blocked a pathway. A court ordered it to be reopened temporarily. Later, the person who had the pathway blocked seemed to give up on getting the court to force it open permanently by saying they only wanted money. The court agreed and said that they would only consider the money claim.
Key Facts
- •Claimant alleges wrongful interference with a right of way over a concrete platform on the defendant's land.
- •Defendants demolished part of the platform, obstructing the claimant's access.
- •Miles J granted an interim injunction requiring reinstatement of the platform.
- •Default judgments were entered against the defendants.
- •Claimant applied to reinstate the platform and for damages.
- •Claimant's solicitor's letter stated claimant was "content not to pursue all non-monetary aspects of the Particulars of Claim."
- •The court considered whether this constituted abandonment of the claim for injunctive relief.
Legal Principles
A lessee in possession of land can sue in nuisance.
Inchbold v Robinson (1869) LR 4 Ch 388; Jones v Chappell (1875) LR 20 Eq 539
The owner of an incorporeal hereditament, such as an easement, may sue for interference with that easement.
Celsteel Ltd v Alton House Holdings [1985] 1 WLR 204, 216
A reversioner may sue in nuisance for damage to the reversion.
Kidgell v Moor (1860) 9 CB 364 and Bell v The Midland Railway Company (1861) 10 CB (NS) 287
In nuisance, the damage must be of a permanent nature.
Jones v Llanrwst Urban DC (No.2) [1911] 1 Ch 393, 404; Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd v RMC FH Co Ltd [2018] Ch. 195, [54]
To be actionable, interference with an easement must be substantial and prevent the easement from being substantially and practically exercised as conveniently after as before the alleged obstruction.
Nicholls v Ely Beet Sugar Factory Ltd [1936] 1 Ch 343; B & Q plc v Liverpool & Lancashire Properties Ltd (2001) 81 P & CR 20; West v Sharp (2000) 79 P & CR 327; Celsteel Limited v Alton House Limited [1985] 1 WLR 204
CPR 12.3, 12.4, 13.2, 13.3, 13.6 govern default judgments and setting aside judgments.
CPR
CPR 3.10 empowers the court to remedy errors of procedure.
CPR 3.10
Outcomes
Claimant's application for an order permitting reinstatement of the platform dismissed.
The court held that the claimant had abandoned the claim for injunctive relief by stating they were "content not to pursue all non-monetary aspects" of the claim, which the court interpreted to include the injunction.
Similar Cases
Lee James Bootle v GHL Property Management and Development Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2928 (Ch)
Dean McGuinness & Anor v Edward Avery Gee & Ors
[2023] EWHC 3283 (Ch)
National Highways Limited v Person Unknown & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 182
Maggie Otto & Ors v Inner Mongolia Happy Lamb & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2920 (Ch)