Bridle v Ruby and Another
Bridle v Ruby and Another
- 1988
- All England Law Reports (1988) 3 All ER 64-70(7) .
CA 17 December 1987. Appeal by defendant (R) against cc decision in favour of plaintiff`s (B) claim for a right of way over R`s driveway . B and his predecessors in title had enjoyed 22 years` uninterrupted use of this right of way in the mistaken belief that it was enjoyed by virtue of an express grant contained in conveyances from the devlopers in 1956. Cc held that B was entitled to the right of way under the doctrine of lost modern grant . R appealed to CA contending that 1) the mistaken belief by B and his predecessors in title prevented their user from establishing a right of way by prescription and 2) a lost modern grant would only be issued where the state of affairs was otherwise inexplicable. The decisions in Earl de la Warr v Miles (1881) and Chamber Colliery Company v Hopwood (1886) were considered. CA held that 1) the decision in Earl de la Warr was clear authority against the argument that B`s mistaken belief prevented the user from establishing a right of way by prescr
EASEMENTS
CA 17 December 1987. Appeal by defendant (R) against cc decision in favour of plaintiff`s (B) claim for a right of way over R`s driveway . B and his predecessors in title had enjoyed 22 years` uninterrupted use of this right of way in the mistaken belief that it was enjoyed by virtue of an express grant contained in conveyances from the devlopers in 1956. Cc held that B was entitled to the right of way under the doctrine of lost modern grant . R appealed to CA contending that 1) the mistaken belief by B and his predecessors in title prevented their user from establishing a right of way by prescription and 2) a lost modern grant would only be issued where the state of affairs was otherwise inexplicable. The decisions in Earl de la Warr v Miles (1881) and Chamber Colliery Company v Hopwood (1886) were considered. CA held that 1) the decision in Earl de la Warr was clear authority against the argument that B`s mistaken belief prevented the user from establishing a right of way by prescr
EASEMENTS