Centaur Property Estates Limited & Anor v Larry Thornton Scott & Ors
[2024] EWHC 127 (Ch)
Duchess of Bedford House RTM Company Limited & Ors v Campden Hill Gate Limited
8 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1470
Court of Appeal
A fight over parking spaces in a fancy apartment building! The court decided who had the right to park based on tricky wording in old property documents. The court ruled that despite people parking there for years, the legal documents didn't actually give them the right to keep parking.
Key Facts
- •Dispute over car parking rights at Duchess of Bedford House and Campden Hill Gate.
- •Appellants are leaseholders of flats at Duchess of Bedford House.
- •Respondent is the head lessee of Campden Hill Gate and surrounding areas, including roads and gardens.
- •Freehold title held by trustees of the Phillimore Kensington Estate.
- •1969 Headlease granted to Campden Hill's predecessor, reserving certain rights to the Phillimore Estate.
- •1974 Headlease granted for Duchess of Bedford House, containing a reservation clause ('Carve-Out Clause') central to the dispute.
- •Appellants sought a declaration regarding their parking rights on Sheldrake Place East.
- •HHJ Gerald found in favor of the Appellants.
- •Adam Johnson J overturned HHJ Gerald's decision.
Legal Principles
Section 62(2) Law of Property Act 1925: A conveyance of land includes all outhouses, erections, fixtures, easements, rights, and advantages appertaining to the land, unless a contrary intention is expressed.
Law of Property Act 1925, section 62(2)
Clear words are necessary to express a contrary intention to Section 62(2) LPA 1925.
Wood v Waddington [2015] EWCA Civ 538
A right for a landowner to park a car anywhere in a defined area nearby is capable of acting as an easement.
Newman v Jones (22 March 1982) (unreported)
In contractual interpretation, the court's task is to ascertain the objective meaning of the language used, considering the agreement as a whole and relevant background.
Arnold v Britton [2015] AC 1619; Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] AC 1173
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Court of Appeal held that the Judge correctly construed the Carve-Out Clause as a whole, excluding the parking rights. The Court found the Judge's interpretation of the second limb of the clause too broad and preferred HHJ Gerald's more restrictive approach. The Court also upheld the finding that a right to park had been reserved in the 1969 Headlease based on settled practice.