A freeholder of property has standing to bring a claim for interference with a right of way over a neighbour’s land where it can establish permanent damage to the reversion even if the property is let to a third party not joined to the proceedings,.
The High Court has considered this issue in Pincus v Johal and another [2024] EWHC 502 (Ch); [2024] PLSCS 50.
The claimant had a right of way which entitled him to use a concrete platform on the second defendant’s land at 19 Millicent Road, Leyton, E10, to access his own commercial premises at 21 Millicent Road. At the time of the hearing, the claimant’s property was let to a commercial tenant. The tenant would unload goods on to the claimant’s land and take them by fork-lift truck up a concrete ramp which became a platform by the side of the building. The platform then turned a corner and passed on to the defendants’ land in order to gain access to the entrance to the building on the claimant’s land, which was at the height of the platform but abutting the defendants’ land.
The claimant alleged the defendants began to demolish the platform, making it impossible for the tenant to take goods into the building by fork-lift truck. In September 2022, the claimant obtained an interim injunction requiring the defendants to reinstate the damaged platform and not to interfere further with the claimant’s alleged right. The defendants carried out certain remedial works to the ramp which the claimant argued were defective.
A claim in nuisance concerns damage to a proprietary interest in land but it need not be an interest in possession. A reversioner may sue in nuisance for permanent damage to the reversion Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd v RMC FH Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 2609 (Ch); [2018] Ch 195; [2017] EGLR 49. The lease was due to expire shortly after the hearing and the court was satisfied that physical damage to a platform, which until it is repaired means that it is less convenient and safe to use a right of way over it, amounted to a permanent nuisance. Consequently, the claimant had standing to bring the claim.
Provided the claimant could prove an infringement of the right, it was not necessary to prove actual damage. The right of way was over the entire width of the platform. A protruding manhole cover caused by a defective repair was both a trip hazard and an obstacle to the moving of heavy goods. This was a sufficiently substantial interference with the claimant’s right to amount to a nuisance.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
