Gary David Harry Hambling & Anor v Garry Lawrence Wakerly & Anor
[2023] EWHC 343 (Ch)
Joseph W Horsford (as Administrator of the Estate of William Horsford, deceased) v Geoffrey Croft (Antigua and Barbuda)
5 March 2024
[2024] UKPC 4
Privy Council
Someone's land was blocked off unless they could use their neighbor's road. They argued they should be able to use the road because otherwise their land is useless. The court agreed they could use the road, but they also had to pay for building on the neighbor's property.
Key Facts
- •Dispute over a right of way over a private road (Monk's Hill Road) in Antigua.
- •Appellant's land was landlocked unless access was granted over the Respondent's road.
- •No express right of way existed; Appellant claimed an easement of necessity.
- •Appellant's land and the road were once part of a larger estate.
- •The estate was divided over time, with various parcels sold and transferred.
- •A contract for sale of a parcel included an obligation to clear a lower road, but did not grant a right of way.
- •The lower western road also offered potential access, but its connection to the public road involved land owned by third parties.
- •Appellant built structures encroaching on the Respondent's property.
Legal Principles
Easement of necessity requires common ownership, inaccessibility without access over another plot, and a disposition of one plot without a right of access grant.
Manjang v Drammeh [1991] 61 P & CR 194, 196-197
Easement of necessity is based on implication from circumstances, not public policy. The implication arises from the inaccessibility of land without a way being implied.
Nickerson v Barraclough [1981] Ch 426
Section 17(4) of the Registered Land Act prevents court action on boundary disputes unless boundaries are determined by the Registrar.
Registered Land Act
Outcomes
Appeal allowed regarding the right of way.
The Respondent failed to prove ownership of the entire lower western route to the public road, leaving the Appellant's land effectively landlocked except for access over the upper eastern road. An easement of necessity over the upper eastern road was therefore implied.
Appeal dismissed regarding the encroachment.
No boundary dispute existed; the encroachment was undisputed. Damages for trespass were awarded, but injunctive relief was refused.