Hamburger v Ascher
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SOMERVELL,LORD JUSTICE JENKINS,LORD JUSTICE HODSON |
| Judgment Date | 16 December 1952 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1952] EWCA Civ J1216-5 |
| Date | 16 December 1952 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1952] EWCA Civ J1216-5
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
LORD JUSTICE SOMERVELL
LORD JUSTICE JENKINS and
LORD JUSTICE HODSON
MR. HAROLD LIGHTMAN (instructed by Messrs. Bridges, Sawtell & Co, agents for Messrs. Robert Breach & Co., Hove) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
MR. NIGEL BRIDGE (instructed by Mr. Cyril Wheeler, Hove) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Defendant).
This is an appeal from a decision of His Honour Judge Franklin which turns on the construction of an agreement for a tenancy. The agreement was dated the 15th November, 1941, between the then landlord or freeholder and the Plaintiff. The premises consisted of the ground floor of a house in Hove. It was a two storey house and thefirst floor constituted another flat. Broadly speaking, the layout, which is very clearly shown on the plan, was that starting from Langdale Road on the left were double gates through which a car or wheeled vehicle could go which lead up to a garage and there was a front garden over which that path ran. Then there was the flat, and the entrance to the ground floor flat was on the left. At the back of the building containing the flats there was a concrete path, a coal bin and a dust bin. Behind that was what is admittedly the garden of the ground floor flat. Behind that again, was the garden of the first floor flat. On the right of the plot looking from Langdale Road there was a single gate and a path which lead right up to the garden of the first floor over at the back. A little less than half way up that path, before one got to the back of the house itself, there was a gate. A little further on there was a wicket gate leading from that path to the back premises and back garden of the lower flat. In these proceedings the Plaintiff claims that he has a right of access to what I will call the back part of the premises by going up this path on the right, through the door and then through the wicket gate, which I have endeavoured to describe, and that those who deliver coal to his coalshed or come to clear dust from the dustbin, or wish to go to the back door, have a right to use that way of access.
In my view, this case turns on the construction of this Memorandum of Agreement to which I have referred. It gave a tenancy for a year, but he stayed on and it is not disputed that the terms relating to this mode of access are...
To continue reading
Request your trial