Martin Harry Bradley and Another v Peter Greenwood Heslin and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Norris
Judgment Date09 October 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] EWHC 3267 (Ch)
Docket NumberCase No: 3LV90068
CourtChancery Division
Date09 October 2014

[2014] EWHC 3267 (Ch)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

LIVERPOOL DISTRICT REGISTRY

Liverpool Civil & Family Courts

Vernon Street

Liverpool

Before:

Mr Justice Norris

VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER

Case No: 3LV90068

Between:
Martin Harry Bradley
Rosemary Diane Bradley
Claimants
and
Peter Greenwood Heslin
Marianne Heslin
Defendants

Mr. Lawrence McDonald (instructed by Brabners LLP) for the Claimants

Mr. Christopher Jones (instructed by Portland Legal Services) for the Defendants

Hearing dates: 19–22 May 2014

Mr Justice Norris
1

Rather to my surprise I find myself trying a case about a pair of gates in Formby: surprise on at least two counts. First, that anyone should pursue a neighbour dispute to trial, where even the victor is not a winner (given the blight which a contested case casts over the future of neighbourly relations and upon the price achievable in any future sale of the property). Second, that the case should have been pursued in the High Court over 3 days. It is not that such cases are somehow beneath the consideration of the Court. They often raise points of novelty and difficulty and are undoubtedly important to the parties and ultimately legal rights (if insisted upon) must be determined. But at what financial and community cost?

2

In 1977 Mr Ewing owned the entirety of the plot now comprised in Title Number MS67573 and MS54181. The entire plot fronted onto Freshfield Road, Formby to the west and was bounded by a wide public footpath called Long Lane to the north. There was an Edwardian villa on the plot designated "No. 40", with a large garden to the rear incorporating a former paddock. Mr Ewing built a bungalow on the paddock land. The bungalow was designated "No. 40A".

3

Mr Ewing moved into No.40A and in October 1977 sold off No.40 (the original villa) to Mr and Mrs Thompson. No.40 was given the title number MS67573. Mr and Mrs Thompson sold No.40 to Mr and Mrs Field in 1984: and they in turn sold No.40 on the 15 September 1986 to Mr and Mrs Bradley, who are the current registered proprietors and the Claimants in the proceedings. (Each of the Claimants is entitled to be called "Dr Bradley": but I will refer to them as "Mr Bradley" and Mrs Bradley" respectively so as to distinguish between them, but without thereby intending any disrespect).

4

No.40A retained the original title number, MS54181. Mr Ewing sold No.40A to Mr Armstrong in the Autumn of 1986 (so that both No.40 and No.40A changed hands at the same time). Mr Armstrong lived at No.40A until his death in 2005. Mr Armstrong's executors sold No.40A on the 21 December 2006 to Mr and Mrs Heslin, who became its registered proprietors and are the Defendants in the action.

5

The separation of No.40 and No.40A had occurred on the 20 October 1977 when Mr Ewing sold No.40 to the Thompsons and retained No.40A for himself. When separating out No.40 the conveyancer used the hallowed but mutually stultifying formula:-

"All that messuage or dwelling house and garage known as 40 Freshfield Road Formby… together with the land forming the site thereof… which is for the purpose of identification only more particularly delineated and edged red on the plan annexed hereto being part of the land of which the Vendor is registered proprietor…"

The plan was to the usual small scale of 1/1250: and the "general boundaries" rule applied. So precise boundaries cannot be measured from the plan, and have to be worked out on the ground.

6

Mr Ewing did not sell the whole of the plot that fronted onto Freshfield Road. He retained for himself as owner of No.40A a driveway running from Freshfield Road alongside and parallel to the northern boundary with Long Lane: and he gave the Thompsons as the owners of No.40 a right of way over that part of the driveway which ran alongside the forecourt to No.40 and alongside the villa and up to the garages built at the rear of No.40. So this right of way was granted over the western half of the (roughly 200ft) length of the driveway. The remaining eastern half of the driveway retained by Mr Ewing to serve No.40A (bounded on the north by Long Lane and on the south by the garden to No.40) was unencumbered by any right of way and was for the exclusive use of No.40A. There is one point of detail to note. On the North West corner of No.40A (where the end of the driveway met Freshfield Road) the boundary did not form a right angle. The corner was cut off at an angle of roughly 45 degrees. So the driveway actually ended in a point on its southern boundary with No.40. I will call the triangle of land cut off the corner of the north western boundary "the excluded triangle".

7

The right granted was:-

"A right of way in common with the Vendor and his successors in title… for all purposes with or without vehicles to pass and re-pass over and along that portion of the access road retained by the Vendor which is shown coloured blue on the said plan which said land coloured blue is part of the land registered under the above title number subject to the payment by the purchasers or their successors in title of one half of the cost of the maintenance and repair of that portion of the said access road coloured blue as hearing before mentioned…"

(There is an obvious mistake in that the "said land coloured blue" was not part of the land registered under "the above title" but was registered under the title number of the original plot). I will refer to the whole length of this strip of land running parallel to Long Lane as "the driveway".

8

I visited the site. Standing in Freshfield Road and looking east the frontage onto Freshfield Road appears thus. The boundary between No.40 and Freshfield Road is formed by a wall approximately 3ft in height and built of reconstituted stone. This terminates at the northern end of the frontage wall in a pillar with a capstone approximately 4ft in height. This is matched by an identical pillar (now lacking the capstone) on the northern side of the driveway, bearing the house name and number for No 40A. From this northernmost pillar springs a low stone wall approximately 2ft in height which runs northward for about 2ft before making a right angle turn east and then running for another 2ft to form the start of the boundary between the driveway and Long Lane. (So on the ground the north western corner is a right angle, and the excluded triangle has been incorporated into the driveway and its features). The boundary between the driveway and Long Lane is then formed by a close boarded fence.

9

Between the two pillars is hung a pair of iron gates each about 4ft wide. The gates are hung on gudgeon pins set into the stone pillars, the pins passing through adjustable eye-bolts on the gates. At present the gates are slightly out of adjustment in that the southern gate hangs slightly higher than the northern gate. The gates are opened by swinging inwards onto the plot. The northern gate must be shut first and is held closed by a drop bolt, which simply drops into a hole in the tarmac. The southern gate ought then to shut against the stock on the northern gate: but because the southern gate is out of adjustment the two gates have to be closed together. The Defendants were anxious that I should note that the adjustment on the eye-bolts had been painted over, that the hinges were corroded, and that the gate latch did not work (partly because it had been painted over and partly because the gates were out of alignment): and so I did.

10

It is now necessary to set out the internal arrangements that would be apparent on passing through the gates between the pillars and proceeding up the driveway towards No.40A.

11

On the right hand side (which is the forecourt to the villa at No.40) a low edging wall made out of the same reconstituted stone and about two courses high runs from the back of the southern pillar through several curves towards the front door of No.40. The forecourt to the villa between that low wall and the northern boundary onto Long Lane is covered in tarmac. It is not possible on the ground to see the boundary line between the driveway and the path to the front door of No.40 for there is simply a single sweep of tarmac.

12

On the left hand side, the northern boundary of the driveway does not abut directly onto Long Lane. That is because there is an identical low stone wall running the length of the driveway behind which is a space of about 18 inches in which is planted a leylandii hedge which abuts directly onto the back of the close boarded fence that runs along Long Lane, and has obviously been allowed to grow to a considerable height. The space between this low stone wall and the gable end of the villa on No.40 is entirely tarmaced.

13

The villa on No.40 is set out at a slight angle on the plot (with a greater distance between the front corner of the villa and the boundary with Long Lane than between the rear corner of the house and that boundary). It is plain from the filed plan that the driveway has straight sides and those sides are parallel to Long Lane. Since the driveway is parallel to the boundary with Long Lane but the gable end of the villa on No.40 is not, it follows that a triangular sliver of land forming part of No.40 has been incorporated into the surface of the driveway: but it is not possible to identify on the ground where the true boundary of the driveway should be alongside the gable end of the villa.

14

There was no tape measure at the site view. But I did some rudimentary pacing and took some sight lines. Whether one includes or excludes one or both of the pillars at the entrance to the driveway, the driveway where it abuts Freshfield Road is wider than the driveway width at the "pinch point" between the gable end of the villa and the Long Lane boundary. The northernmost pillar, the northward run of the low stone wall and its return to form the start...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
3 firm's commentaries
  • Bradley v Heslin Case Summary - October 2014
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 4 d4 Dezembro d4 2014
    ...Easements to open/close gates Bradley & Anr v Heslin & Anr [2014] EWHC 3267 (Ch) Summary The High Court held that the claimants had acquired an equitable easement to open and close a gate for all purposes connected to the reasonable enjoyment of their property, so long as such use d......
  • Mediation Update: To What Extent Can A Judge Nudge?
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 31 d5 Outubro d5 2014
    ...climb. In another case, Mr Justice Norris presided over a neighbour dispute that made its way to the High Court in Bradley v Heslin [2014] EWHC 3267 (Ch). The case concerned a driveway shared by both the Bradleys and the Heslins, leading to their respective properties. The driveway was serv......
  • Court Of Appeal Orders Early Neutral Evaluation Despite Party Objection
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 27 d5 Setembro d5 2019
    ...and resistant to the listing of an FDR. The court referred here with approval to the observations of Norris J in Bradley v Heslin [2014] EWHC 3267 (Ch) in the context of boundary disputes: “I think it is no longer enough to leave the parties the opportunity to mediate and to warn of costs c......
3 books & journal articles
  • Easements and Nuisance
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Positive Covenants and Freehold Land Contents
    • 30 d5 Agosto d5 2019
    ...56 50 [1973] Ch 275. 51 [1973] Ch 275 at 280. 52 [1940] UKHL 2, [1940] AC 880. See para 7.7. 53 [1922] 2 IR 1. 54 Bradley v Heslin [2014] EWHC 3267 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 185 (Oct) involved an easement for a dominant owner to shut gates but no duty on the servient owner to do so. 55 (1691)......
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Positive Covenants and Freehold Land Contents
    • 30 d5 Agosto d5 2019
    ...[1983] 2 All ER 408, [1983] 2 EGLR 143, (1983) 268 EG 152, ChD 77, 80 xiv Positive Covenants and Freehold Land Bradley v Heslin [2014] EWHC 3267 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 185 (Oct), [2014] 10 WLUK 287 81 Bridges, statute of, 1530 131 Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [1999] UKHL 26, ......
  • Long-term Property Relationships: Evaluating the utility of learning from Relational Contract Theory
    • United Kingdom
    • Southampton Student Law Review No. 13-1, January 2023
    • 1 d0 Janeiro d0 2023
    ...Law and Space. in S Bright and S Blandy (eds), Researching Property Law (Palgrave 2016) 134, 138 140 ibid. 141 Bradley v Heslin [2014] EWHC 3267 142 ibid., [2] - [7] 143 ibid., [1] 144 ibid., [78] 28 understanding how norms affect the stakeholder’s legal relationships is therefore underscor......

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