fbpx

Lordship of the Manor Almost Scuppers Residential Development

14th May 2020 By

Lordships of the manor, whilst sounding grand, are often viewed as arcane titles with little real significance in terms of property rights. However, that is not always so and, in one High Court case, a lordship which was bought for just £100 almost proved a fatal stumbling block to a proposed residential development.

As lords of the manor – a title they had acquired from their father, who bought it in the 1960s – a brother and sister owned the freehold of a scenic common. They grew concerned after the owner of a house which adjoined the common was granted planning permission to knock it down and erect four terraced houses in its place.

They argued that the boundary of the proposed development would encroach onto the common. They accepted that the house owner had a right of way over a rough track, which crossed the common, in order to gain access to her property. They argued, however, that that right was limited to the use of a single dwelling and that increased traffic generated by the development would damage the track.

In resolving the boundary issue, the Court considered ordnance survey maps, title deeds and plans of the area, some of which dated back well over a century. It found on the evidence that the correct boundary was in the position contended for by the house owner and that the development would thus not encroach onto the common.

Turning to the right of way issue, the Court found that the house owner’s plans would not involve a radical alteration of her property’s character or identity or an excessive use of the track. Construction vehicles had used the track in the past and such use would not entail a public nuisance or anything akin to it.

The house owner enjoyed an easement which allowed her to run a drain under the common and, given that it would have sufficient capacity to serve the sewerage needs of the new homes, the Court found that they too would benefit from that right. The Court’s ruling paved the way for the development to proceed.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Removal of Guttering Leads to Costly Court Battle

7th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between neighbours over where the boundary between their properties lies can ultimately lead to litigation costs far exceeding the value of the land in question. In a widely reported case, the removal of guttering that allegedly overhung a neighbouring property resulted in a court appearance. A couple claimed that their neighbour had ripped out guttering at their home. They brought legal action against her, claiming that she had trespassed onto their land, and are seeking nearly £2,000 for repairs. They argue that the guttering was wholly on their own...

Retired Businessman's Final Will Ruled Invalid

2nd May, 2024 By

Having your will drawn up professionally by a qualified solicitor is always a sensible precaution, especially in later life. In a recent case, the High Court ruled that a retired businessman lacked testamentary capacity when he made a will less than three and a half years before he died at the age of 87. The man and his first wife were married for nearly 40 years and had four children. After her death he married again. In October 2015 he made a new will, revoking in most respects a will...

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...