header-logo header-logo

28 May 2009 / James Naylor
Issue: 7371 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Testing the water(man)

James Naylor asks whether an Englishman's home is still his castle

* * * * * *

In Waterman & another v Boyle & another [2009] EWCA Civ 115, Mr Boyle and Ms Gwilt developed Hog Lane Farm into three separate properties. They retained 1 Hog Lane Farm, and sold 2 and 3 Hog Lane Farm (2 Hog Lane Farm ultimately being purchased by the Watermans). The three dwellings are connected buildings and they run from east to west. They are approached by a long entrance drive from the north (the entrance drive), and there is a traffic island in front of the properties.

The transfer of 2 Hog Lane Farm provided the following rights: (i) a shared right of access, with or without vehicles, at the north end of the property, via part of the entrance drive (entrance rights), (ii) the right to park private cars on two designated parking spaces (parking rights), and (iii) a shared right of access (garage access rights), with or without vehicles, across a private lane (the lane),

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll