Wilkinson and The Estate of Brian Wilkinson v Farmer: CA 22 Oct 2010

The court considered whether there was a compelling reason to allow a second application for leave to appeal against an order settling the width of a right of way.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Very limited facts could be established from the 1898 conveyance creating the right of way. It could however be shown that buildings at one point limited the maximum size of any cart to the space between them, and that maximum width should be reflected in the maximum width of the existing road and the right now. There had been suffcient evidence to support the land adjudicator’s decision to that effect, and insufficient to allow the court at first instance to set aside his decision. It was to be restored. The court expressed its regret at the cost of the proceedings.

Mummery, Aikens, Gross LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1148
England and Wales
CitedSt 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 . .
CitedWhite v Richards CA 1993
A right had been granted to ‘pass or repass on foot and with or without motor vehicles over and along the track coloured brown on the plan so far as the said right may be necessary for the use and enjoyment of the retained land.’ The county court . .
CitedWest v Sharp CA 1999
Mummery LJ set out the test to be applied when asking whether there had been a substantial interference in the exercise of an easement so as to be actionable: ‘Not every interference with an easement, such as a right of way, is actionable. There . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.425470