The defendants owned land over which the plaintiffs owned shooting and other sporting rights. When the plaintiffs licenced those rights to others the defendants objected and prevented access. They appealed a finding that they had infringed the rights, saying that the extent of enjoyment now claimed was unreasonable.
Held: The rights granted were widely stated and included rearing birds.
[1998] EG 125, [1998] EWCA Civ 1229, [1998] NPC 121
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – White v Grand Hotel Eastbourne Ltd CA 28-Oct-1912
A private dwelling house, to which a right of way was appurtenant, was converted into a hotel.
Held: A right of way granted for general purposes is not to be restricted to access to the land merely for such purposes as were reasonably required . .
Cited – Johnstone v Holdway 1963
. .
Cited – St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance v Clark (No.2) CA 1973
When looking at a contract ‘one must construe the document according to the natural meaning of the words contained in the document as a whole, read in the light of surrounding circumstances.’
The contra preferetem rule can only come into play . .
Cited – Farrer v Nelson 1885
The plaintiff was tenant of a farm over which the defendants’ predecessor had reserved shooting rights. The defendants had brought pheasants in coops on to land very close to the plaintiffs’ farm. The came onto the farm damaging his crops. The . .
Cited – Peech v Best CA 1931
The defendant owned a 700 acre farm. He granted to the plaintiff ‘the exclusive right of shooting and sporting in over and upon it’ for a term of fourteen years. With still some four years of the term to run, he conveyed 12 acres of the farm for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.144708