Rights Of Way Expanded?

In the recent case of Gore v Naheed and Another [2017] EWCA Civ 369, the Court of Appeal considered the extent to which a right of way benefiting one property could be used to gain access to adjoining land which did not have the express benefit of the easement. The Court confirmed that in certain circumstances it is possible for an easement to be used in that manner.


Gore owned a property called the Granary and an adjoining garage. The Granary had the benefit of a right of way to the street over a driveway, part of which was owned by the neighbours, by virtue of a 1921 conveyance. The conveyance granted a right to "go and return along and over [the driveway and garage land] for all purposes connected with the use and occupation of the [Granary] but not further or otherwise".

Gore used the driveway to gain access to the Granary and with a view to parking in the garage. However, vehicular access to the Granary and the garage was obstructed on a number of occasions by their neighbours who used the driveway for deliveries to their premises.

A dispute arose between the parties as to the extent of Gore's right of way over the driveway. It was accepted that the easement entitled Gore to drive a vehicle to the front door of the Granary and to park there for the purpose of loading and unloading. It was also accepted that Gore was entitled to drive to the garage and to park there temporarily for the purpose of loading and unloading. However, it was disputed that Gore had a right to use the driveway to obtain direct access to the garage for the purpose of leaving a car parked there indefinitely.

At first instance, the Judge made a declaration that the rights granted by the 1921 conveyance included the right for Gore to pass over the driveway for the purpose of parking in the garage. The Judge also granted an injunction in terms which prevented obstruction of vehicular access to the garage, but provided that parking of a vehicle by the neighbours on their part of the driveway for up to 20 minutes for the purpose of loading and unloading would not amount to an obstruction. He further awarded Gore general and special damages and costs even though Gore had not claimed damages. The neighbours appealed.

The decision

The Court of Appeal upheld the Judge's decision and agreed that the use of the garage was ancillary to the use of the Granary. Parking...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT