A right of way had been acquired by prescription, but its extent was disputed. It had been used for mainly residential purposes, but then to a greater extent for a different business use.
Held: A right of way may be for one purpose, to the exclusion of others. It is a question of fact whether a right of way is for a limited purpose or purposes, or is a general right for all purposes. A right of way for a defunct family business cannot be enlarged into a right of way for business generally.
His Honour Judge Bowsher Q.C.
 EWHC Ch 410
England and Wales
Cited – Cowling v Higginson 1838
A right of way may be for one purpose to the exclusion of other purposes. It is a question of fact on the evidence whether a right of way is for a limited purpose or purposes or is a general right for all purposes. . .
Cited – Williams v James 1867
A right of way had been granted over the plaintiff’s land for the benefit of ‘Nine acre field’ in its ordinary use as a field. Hay grown on both Nine acre field and the adjoining ‘Parrott’s land’ had been mowed and stored on Nine acre field in the . .
Cited – British Railways Board v Glass CA 1965
An easement arising by prescription involves a fictional lost grant. The court considered the extent of user of an easement in relation to a prescriptive right of way for the benefit of land used as a caravan site: ‘A right to use a way for this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160103