Ketley v Gooden
Language: English Series: Property, planning & compensation reports ; [1997] 73 P&CR March 1997, 305-313(8)Publication details: 1997Subject(s): Summary: CA 29 February 1996. Both parties owned adjacent properties, the titles to each of which were registered. G carried out building works to provide access to blocks of flats on his land, which K claimed constituted trespass. G also demolished a ramp providing access to K`s house. K issued a writ seeking an injunction and damages, G claimed ownership of the ramp. Judge rejected both claims to have title to the ramp and found G had acted with disregard to K`s rights. K granted an injunction and damages. G appealed. "Held" appeal allowed in part - injunction requiring reinstatement of the ramp should not have been granted.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS56906 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 77860-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
CA 29 February 1996. Both parties owned adjacent properties, the titles to each of which were registered. G carried out building works to provide access to blocks of flats on his land, which K claimed constituted trespass. G also demolished a ramp providing access to K`s house. K issued a writ seeking an injunction and damages, G claimed ownership of the ramp. Judge rejected both claims to have title to the ramp and found G had acted with disregard to K`s rights. K granted an injunction and damages. G appealed. "Held" appeal allowed in part - injunction requiring reinstatement of the ramp should not have been granted.