Sherwell was entitled to a right of way over land belonging to Mr Mees. Mr Mees carried out work to the route over which the right of way ran which made it unusable. The work that he carried out amounted to an actionable nuisance. Sherwell made no complaint. The lack of objection by Sherwell made it possible for Mr Mees to sell his land to Mr and Mrs Woodgate without having to give notice of any dispute about the right of way. Sherwell then sold its land to Mr and Mrs Lester.
Held: Sherwell’s appeal failed. Mr and Mrs Lester were estopped from asserting the right of way. Patten LJ noted that the pleaded case was that by failing to take any steps to prevent the creation of an actionable nuisance by Mr Mees, Sherwell became estopped as against Mr Mees and his successors in title from enforcing the right of way. He said: ‘If the claimant’s conduct at the time takes the form of encouraging the defendant to believe that his otherwise tortious interference with the claimant’s property will be waived and not objected to and, in reliance on that, the defendant subsequently acts in a way which can be characterised as detrimental then the position is, I think, different from the facts considered in Ramsden v Dyson and the court does then have to decide whether the causative effect of that conduct is sufficient to bar the enforcement of the legal right.’
Patten LJ rejected the submission that Sherwell’s acquiescence had not been relied on by Mr Mees. Mr Mees was entitled to rely on that acquiescence in formulating his replies to enquiries before contract. What is important is that the case was decided on the basis of reliance by the person to whom the representations were made and who was the property owner at the time of the reliance.
Judges:
sedley, Jacob, Patten LJJ
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 199, [2010] 2 P and CR 21
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Watt v Dignan and Others CA 5-Oct-2017
The parties disputed the continued existence of rights to use a toilet. The servient owner sought to establish an estoppel.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.402553
