[2004] EWHC 2193 (Ch), 7 October 2004. Claimant (P) sought injunctions, declaratory relief and damages for trespass in respect of building works carried out to a neighbouring property owned by defendants (R) .P and R owned and lived at No 6A and 6 respectively. Dispute centred around R's access rights via roadway to carry out alteration works and build an extension to his property. P submitted that the use of roadway to carry out building works was unlawful and the altered features to No 6 which overhung the roadway gave rise to a liability in damages for trespass. The right of access to No 6 did not permit the position of the front door to be moved, a gap for repairing purposes had to be left between No 6A and any extension to No 6, the proviso in the title suspended R's rights to access while they were unlawfully using the roadway he had not consented to the trespasses to the roadway and was not estopped from complaining about them and was entitled to aggravated damages for the mental distress he had suffered. "Held: " that R was not entitled to use the roadway to carry out building operations which were not limited to works of repair and maintenance. R was entitled to carry out alterations to the property as long as they did not use the roadway to do so and did not create any physical alterations which would overhang the roadway. R was also entitled to reposition the front door of No 6. On expert evidence it was held that two metres should be left between wall of 6A and any extension in the garden of No 6. After hearing background facts to dispute, it was decided that P had consented to use of the roadway. Applying the wayleave principle to reflect the price which P as a reasonable person would charge and which R as a reasonable person would pay for the use of P's land, it was decided that the correct measure of damages was £10 000 plus an entitlement to aggravated damages of £5 000. View judgment at www.bailii.org.