Steele (William Keith) & Steele (Olwen Margaret) v Sweeney (Ross Seymour) & Sweeney (Seymour)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | District Judge Duncan |
| Judgment Date | 18 September 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] NICty 2 |
| Court | County Court (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 18 September 2018 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2018] NICty 2
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: 2018NICTY2
Delivered: 18/09/2018
2015 No. 102813
IN THE COUNTY COURT FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
SITTING AT COLERAINE
BY THE COUNTY COURT JUDGE
___________
BETWEEN:
WILLIAM KEITH STEELE
and
OLWEN MARGARET SMYTH
Plaintiffs
and
ROSS SEYMOUR SWEENEY
and
SEYMOUR SWEENEY
and
CAUSEWAY COAST AND GLENS BOROUGH COUNCIL
Defendants
___________
DEPUTY COUNTY COURT JUDGE DUNCAN
INTRODUCTION
[1] The plaintiffs, who are brother and sister, are the owners in fee simple of a
dwelling house at 16 Seaport Avenue, Portballintrae, County Antrim. The property
is a semi-detached house which faces the bay in Portballintrae. It is accessed to the
rear from a public road. Until 2014 the front, eastern, boundary of the property was
separated by a narrow strip of land from a hard- packed stone lane which runs north
from Bayhead Road, a public road, to the vicinity of a quay. This stone lane is
2
known as Seaport Avenue (“the Avenue”) and in these proceedings the plaintiffs
seek a declaration that they have a right of way with or without vehicles over the
Avenue, firstly, from the County Road to 16 Seaport Avenue, and secondly from
16 Seaport Avenue to the quay. The right of way asserted is claimed by prescription
over the entirety of Seaport Avenue but in respect of part of the southern portion of
Seaport Avenue, namely that running from the County Road to just past office
buildings owned by members of the Sweeney family and being approximately 80 or
90 metres in length, the plaintiffs also claim that they have the benefit of an express
grant of easement. This portion of the Avenue is best illustrated on an Ace map of
the area exhibited to the affidavit of Mr AJ Reilly sworn on 16th June 2017 and found
on page 627 of Book 2 of the trial bundles. On that map the relevant portion of the
Avenue is, together with other lands not the subject of these proceedings, shown
shaded brown and is currently owned by the first named defendant.
[2] The civil bill has been amended twice during the course of these proceedings
but even in its latest format, submitted after the close of oral evidence, no reference
is made in same to the assertion of the express rights which the plaintiffs submit
emanate from the grant of easement. However, the issue was raised in the plaintiffs’
initial skeleton argument, is addressed in the affidavit of Mr Reilly filed on behalf of
the first and second defendants and was explored during the examination in chief
and cross examination of Mr Reilly during the hearing of this action. Despite the
civil bill being silent on this issue I do not consider that the defendants have been
taken by surprise by the ventilation of this matter and in the spirit of the overriding
objective I intend to examine the effect of the express grant in the course of this
judgment.
[3] In addition to the declarations sought over the Avenue, the plaintiffs in the
latest amendment to the civil bill have also sought a declaration that the plaintiffs
have the following rights:
(a) a right to park at a particular location on the Avenue identified on the
amended map attached to the civil bill;
(b) a right to launch boats, dinghies and to do other such recreational
activities from the jetty (the quay referred to in paragraph 1 above and
which for the sake of consistency in this judgment I will continue to
refer to as “the quay”);
(c) a right to launch boats, dinghies and to do other such recreational
activities from or at the sandy beach lying to the south of the quay; and
(d) the right to use the quay and beach for all recreational activities.
[4] Being satisfied that the latest amendments are necessary to properly address
issues raised during the course of the hearing and being further satisfied that the
To continue reading
Request your trial