Carter and Anor v Cole and Anor [electronic resource]
Carter and Anor v Cole and Anor [electronic resource]
- 2009
[2009] EWCA Civ 410, 20 May 2009. The claimants (Ca) owned an area of land, part of which they leased to a mineral water bottling company. The other part they subsequently sold to the appellants (Co) who built a house on the land. At the time of the sale, it was agreed that there would be a right of way across the land so that the water bottling company could have access for lorries. The water bottling company subsequently ended the lease, and Ca applied for planning permission to use the premises as offices. This was refused, as the visibility splay from the access road on to the main road was no longer adequate, due to planting and fencing undertaken by Co. Ca argued that Co had derogated from the grant of a right of way which they gave when they bought their land, and claim a mandatory injunction requiring the Coles to restore the splay, and damages. "Held": appeal dismissed. The previous judge had been right to find in favour of Ca, however the damages awarded were reduced to £20 000.
CARTER AND ANOTHER V COLE AND ANOTHER
England--886-
[2009] EWCA Civ 410, 20 May 2009. The claimants (Ca) owned an area of land, part of which they leased to a mineral water bottling company. The other part they subsequently sold to the appellants (Co) who built a house on the land. At the time of the sale, it was agreed that there would be a right of way across the land so that the water bottling company could have access for lorries. The water bottling company subsequently ended the lease, and Ca applied for planning permission to use the premises as offices. This was refused, as the visibility splay from the access road on to the main road was no longer adequate, due to planting and fencing undertaken by Co. Ca argued that Co had derogated from the grant of a right of way which they gave when they bought their land, and claim a mandatory injunction requiring the Coles to restore the splay, and damages. "Held": appeal dismissed. The previous judge had been right to find in favour of Ca, however the damages awarded were reduced to £20 000.
CARTER AND ANOTHER V COLE AND ANOTHER
England--886-