ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
LIVERPOOL DISTRICT REGISTRY
THE HON MR JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS
VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER
Claim No 8LV30042
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS
| ALAN ERIC CAMPBELL
|- and -
|WILLIAM T BANKS & ORS
MR NICHOLAS DK JACKSON (instructed by Messrs Cockshott Peck Lewis) for the Respondents
Hearing date: 3rd December 2010
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Mummery:
"(1) A conveyance of land shall be deemed to include and shall by virtue of this Act operate to convey, with the land, all buildings, erections, fixtures, commons, hedges, ditches, fences, ways, waters, watercourses, liberties, privileges, easements, rights, and advantages whatsoever, appertaining or reputed to appertain to the land or any part thereof, or, at the time of the conveyance, demised, occupied, or enjoyed with, or reputed or known as part or parcel of or appurtenant to the land or any part thereof."
A. The s.62 point
Objections to s62 ground of appeal
"35. …despite Mr Campbell's suggestions to the contrary, there is no reliable evidence that Mrs Hillier or any other occupiers before the Campbells used anything but the northern section of Headbolt Lane."
"45. … There was no suggestion of use by Mrs Hillier of Carr Lane."
"51. …Furthermore, there is no evidence of use before 1986 to establish a right of way in favour of the owners of 98 New Cut Lane, beyond the express right of way in the conveyance dated 31 July 1953."
"Section 62 of the 1925 Act cannot create new rights where there has been no actual enjoyment of a facility, call it a liberty, privilege, advantage, easement or quasi-easement, by the owner or occupier of the dominant tenement over the servient tenement. If there is a quasi-easement, in that there is evidence of user or a physical state of affairs which indicates the existence of a quasi-easement, then section 62 can operate to convert that into an easement."
Discussion and conclusion on s62 point
B. Public right of way claim: fresh evidence application
Lord Justice Longmore:
Lord Justice Richards: