An easement (a right of way across private land) has the potential to cause legal and practical problems for land and property owners. How an easement is interpreted and used is essential, as was recently shown in the High Court case of McGill v Stewart and others, which involved a neighbour dispute over private vehicles accessing a shared single access lane.
McGill v Stewart & Anor
The parties involved in this case were two property owners whose homes were located off a fairly long, quite narrow private lane in Buckinghamshire. The lane was the only conventional way of accessing both properties.
By a Deed of Transfer, the following easement existed in respect of the lane:
“The right on foot and with or without private motor vehicles over and along the roadway running between the points marked A and B on the annexed plan subject to the Transferee contributing one third of the cost of maintaining such roadway.”
The Deed also contained the following:
“Not to carry on or permit any trade business or profession on the property hereby transferred nor to do or permit anything thereon which may be or grow to be a nuisance or annoyance to the Transferors or the owners or occupiers of the adjoining lands.”
“To contribute one third of the cost of maintaining repairing and renewing the roadway running between the points marked A and B on the annexed plan.”
The Claimant (Christopher McGill) in this case alleged that the Defendants (Ray and Emma Stewart) had failed to observe the existing right of way in relation to the lane, which, as stated above, limited use to ‘private motor vehicles’, and that the surface of the lane had been damaged due to the Defendants allowing the lane to be used by other vehicles (heavy plant and machinery, and HGV lorries).
The Claimant argued that the easement imposed a limitation on the type of vehicle that could use the lane and that access was limited to vehicles owned by the Defendants and used for domestic purposes only. However, this would mean that the lane could not be used by friends and family, postal and medical services, and trades people visiting the Defendants’ property by vehicle.
The Defendants disagreed with the Claimant’s interpretation of the easement, denying any longstanding misuse of it and that they allowed prohibited vehicles to use the lane.
The Judge, Master McCloud, ruled in favour of the Defendants, stating that vehicles using the lane should be limited to those necessary for the standard use of the property as a dwelling. This allowed for visitors, post vans, delivery vans, trades persons, etc., to access the property using the lane.
Any additional use (e.g. for construction/development work), deemed to be beyond what is typically considered to be essential use of the land as a private dwelling, would need to be agreed between the parties. If this could not be agreed, then the Master recommended that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) should take place.
The Master also commented that in the future that these type of cases would be more suited to lower-cost forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), out of the Courtroom, which would not only help reduce the legal costs but also hopefully repair any ill-feelings between neighbours as a consequence:
“In the modernising legal system one hopes that such fallings-out will be less painful when resolved away from formal court settings. The courts themselves have limited resources, and whilst I appreciate that neighbour disputes are significant to the parties, it must be borne in mind that such disputes compete for time with cases such as those one sees daily in this court concerning brain damage and other life-changing injuries, death and the very gravest of historic child abuse.”
How Nelsons can help
Simon Waterfield is a Partner in our Property Disputes team.
For further information in relation to the topics discussed in this article, please call Simon or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or contact us via our online enquiry form.