B & Q Plc v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year2001
Date2000
CourtChancery Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
17 cases
  • Charles William Michael Lea v David Anthony Ward
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 6 Septiembre 2017
    ...a nuisance by way of substantial, albeit temporary, interference? 120 The test to be applied is that set out in B&Q Plc v. Liverpool & Lancashire Properties (2001) 81 P&CR 20 at [39], [45] and [48], namely there must be a substantial interference with the enjoyment of a right of way. There ......
  • Perlman v Rayden
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 7 Octubre 2004
    ...not interfere with the reasonable use of the right of way." 59 In the later case of B&Q plc v. Liverpool & Lancashire Properties Ltd [2001] 1 EGLR 92, Blackburne J (after referring to West v. Sharp and to the decision of Scott J in Celsteel Ltd v. Alton House Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 204) summarise......
  • Decision Nº ACQ 320 2010. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 30-08-2012
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)
    • 30 Agosto 2012
    ...to in this decision: Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Oxford City Council [1999] EGLR 167 B & Q Plc v Liverpool & Lancashire Properties Ltd [2001] 1 EGLR 92 Hammersmith & City Rly Co v Brand (1869) LR 4 HL 171 Allen v Gulf Oil Ltd [1981] AC 1001 Kent County Council v Union Railways (North) Ltd ......
  • Higson and Another v Guenault and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 Mayo 2014
    ...case, constitutes the "reasonable use of a right of way" was the subject of further analysis by Blackburne J in B&Q PLC v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Limited. 22 That analysis was endorsed as correctly stating the law by this court in Emmett v Sisson. 23 Blackburne J deduced three p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Restrictions on the Use of Land Preliminary Sections
    • 30 Agosto 2016
    ...Application, Re [2002] 1 P & CR 17, LT 325, 328 B&Q Plc v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Ltd (2001) 81 P & CR 20, [2001] 1 EGLR 92, [2001] 15 EG 138, Ch D 34 Bailey v Jamieson (1876) 1 CPD 329 171, 217 Bakewell Management Ltd v Brandwood [2004] UKHL 14, [2004] 2 AC 519, [20......
  • Particular Easements and Examples of Analogous Remedies of Relevance to Development
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Restrictions on the Use of Land Part I. Easements and profits à prendre
    • 30 Agosto 2016
    ...Ltd (1989) 58 P & CR 1 at 8; West v Sharp (2000) 79 P & CR 327 at 332 and 335; B&Q Plc v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Ltd (2001) 81 P & CR 20 at [45], where Blackburne J stated as follows, ‘(1) the test of an actionable interference is not whether what the grantee is left with is rea......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT