Easements - Rights Of Way

Maioriello and others v Ashdale Land and Property Company Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 1618

Summary

The Court of Appeal has held that the Court should not allow a servient owner to prevent – without time limit - the lawful use of a right of way by one dominant owner in order to stop excessive and unlawful use of the easement by others. The Court therefore held that the terms of an injunction made against the Appellant should be modified.

Facts

The Respondent (and originally Claimant) in this case ("Ashdale") owned land in Ripley, Surrey, which included an access road to a large field owned by the various original Defendants. The field has the benefit of a right of way over Ashdale's access road "for agricultural purposes only with or without vehicles, farm machinery and animals".

In 2009, steps were taken to convert the field into a large traveller site which involved lorries, trailers, vans, caravans and construction equipment passing along Ashdale's road by day and night. Various interim injunctions were granted to Ashdale which proved to be ineffective in preventing the continued unlawful use of the road and acts of trespass by the original Defendants. Ashdale accordingly had to resort to laying down concrete blocks to prevent vehicular access to the site along its access road pending trial.

First Instance Decision

At first instance, Ashdale was granted the declaration and injunction it sought, entitling it to obstruct all access over the road. Having had regard to the interests of all those affected, the Court found that the granting of the declaration (and injunction) was proportionate, just and appropriate in all the circumstances of this case, noting that injunctions against the Defendants which sought to prevent the unlawful use of the road had already proved to be ineffective.

The Court found that all of the Defendants had purchased their land intending to use it as a gypsy caravan site, a use that would inevitably lead them to trespass onto Ashdale's land. The Court therefore concluded that anything less than complete obstruction of the access to the Defendants' land would be ineffective in preventing future acts of trespass. The Court also held that the Defendants had (at the very least) all been complicit in the repeated breaches of the Court's Orders. On the facts, the Court held that the 12th Defendant (when purchasing his land) took a gamble that had "seriously backfired" and the Court held he had no genuine intention to use his...