The claimant sought a declaration that he had acquired an easement over land by driving over it, over several years. The land owner denied the easement, saying that section 193 made the claimant’s activity a crime, and that, following Hanning, criminal activity could not be used to found a claim of adverse possession. The claimant countered that an argument as to the doctrine of lost modern grant had not been proposed in Hanning, and that Hanning should accordingly be overruled.
Held: It was not for a High Court judge to go against a precedent set by the Court of Appeal, save in exceptional circumstances. In Hanning, particularly, leave to appeal had been refused by the House of Lords. The court was bound to find in favour of the land owner.
Mr Justice Park
Times 19-Apr-2002, Gazette 10-May-2002
Law of Property Act 1925 193(4)
England and Wales
Citing:
Doubted – Hanning and Others v Top Deck Travel Group Ltd CA 9-Jun-1993
The owner of a common appealed a finding that the neighbouring land owner had acquired by prescription a right of way across the common to use a track for commercial vehicles (buses) to get to the property (the bus depot).
Held: An easement . .
Cited – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Roland Brandwood and others v Bakewell Management Ltd CA 30-Jan-2003
House owners had used vehicular access across a common to get to their houses for many years. The commons owner required them to purchase the right, and they replied that they had acquired the right by lost modern grant and/or by prescription.
Land, Litigation Practice
Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.170064
