Image from Google Jackets

CIN Properties Ltd v Rawlins and others

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1995) 39 EG 148-151(4)Publication details: 1995Subject(s): Summary: CA 1 February 1995. The appellant (C) holds a long lease of a shopping centre from a local authority which includes a number of internal pedestrian malls. These were not included on the plan of roads and paths expressly dedicated as public highways when the centre was created. The respondents (R) were banned from the shopping centre due to bad behaviour but they continued to frequent it. In proceedings by C seeking injunctions against R it was held that although the pedestrian malls were not subject to any walkway agreement, R had an equitable license to enter the centre. C appealed. Upheld on the grounds that C held its interest in the centre by a lease, and that provided for access to the centre by the public, it did not amount to a walkway agreement within Highways Act 1980 and therefore the pedestrian malls were not public highways.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS53579 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 5176-1001

CA 1 February 1995. The appellant (C) holds a long lease of a shopping centre from a local authority which includes a number of internal pedestrian malls. These were not included on the plan of roads and paths expressly dedicated as public highways when the centre was created. The respondents (R) were banned from the shopping centre due to bad behaviour but they continued to frequent it. In proceedings by C seeking injunctions against R it was held that although the pedestrian malls were not subject to any walkway agreement, R had an equitable license to enter the centre. C appealed. Upheld on the grounds that C held its interest in the centre by a lease, and that provided for access to the centre by the public, it did not amount to a walkway agreement within Highways Act 1980 and therefore the pedestrian malls were not public highways.