000			01729cam a2200253 4500
001			ABS66386
008			030204n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u121235
245			_aBakewell Management Ltd v Brandwood and others
260			_c2003
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2003] 06 EG 146 (CS)
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2003] 09 EG 198-207(8)
520			_a[2003] EWCA Civ 23, 30 January 2003. The respondent company (X) owned a common, which under the previous owner's deed was subject to provisions in the Law of Property Act 1925 s193 prohibiting vehicular access to the land. Appellants (Y) owned properties near or on the common and had enjoyed vehicular access for over 20 years without objection from X. X brought proceedings claiming that the vehicular access was unlawful. Y claimed each household had an easement of way acquired under the Prescription Act 1832 and/or by the doctrine of lost modern grant. Judgment for X on the grounds that neither form of prescription could be based upon activity that was contrary to the criminal law. Y appealed. "Held": appeal dismissed in accordance with "Hanning v Top Deck Travel Group Ltd" (CA [1994] 68 P&CR 14). Y's claim to an easement failed because they could not show 20 years continuous lawful use. (For ChD see WB3813-21). View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk.
590			_aABS
650			_aBAKEWELL MANAGEMENT LTD V BRANDWOOD AND OTHERS
650			_aHANNING V TOP DECK TRAVEL GROUP LTD
650			_aVEHICULAR ACCESS
650			_aLOST MODERN GRANT
650			_aLAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S193
650			_aPRESCRIPTION ACT 1832
650			_aCOMMON LAND
690			_aPROPERTY AND LAND LAW-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c72049 _d72049