In Property Point Ltd v Kirri [2009] EWHC 2958 (Ch); [2009] PLSCS 319, the owner of registered land asked the court to cancel an entry in its charges register. The entry protected prescriptive rights of way over land adjoining a garage. On closer inspection, however, it became clear that the right that the user claimed was a right to turn her car around so that she could park facing in the correct direction in her garage.
In Moncrieff v Jamieson[2007] UKHL 42; [2007] 1 WLR 2620, the owners of land on a Scottish island conceded – correctly in Lord Neuberger’s view – the existence of rights to come and go and to turn vehicles to face the opposite direction. Nothing daunted, in Property Point, the servient landowner argued that the law does not recognise rights to manoeuvre vehicles.
In Property Point Ltd v Kirri [2009] EWHC 2958 (Ch); [2009] PLSCS 319, the owner of registered land asked the court to cancel an entry in its charges register. The entry protected prescriptive rights of way over land adjoining a garage. On closer inspection, however, it became clear that the right that the user claimed was a right to turn her car around so that she could park facing in the correct direction in her garage.
In Moncrieff v Jamieson[2007] UKHL 42; [2007] 1 WLR 2620, the owners of land on a Scottish island conceded – correctly in Lord Neuberger’s view – the existence of rights to come and go and to turn vehicles to face the opposite direction. Nothing daunted, in Property Point, the servient landowner argued that the law does not recognise rights to manoeuvre vehicles.
The High Court upheld the user’s claim. She claimed to have acquired the rights by prescription. Consequently, the court must consider the nature, extent and purpose of the use that she had made of the land. Any rights acquired would be co-extensive with, but no more burdensome than the rights for which she had prescribed.
Importantly, the judge ruled that English law does not subdivide rights of way into separate categories (for example, to pass and repass, to load and unload, or to use a vehicular turning area) and there was no reason why a right of way could not be established for the defined purpose of turning vehicles into a garage.
The landowner tried to distance itself from Moncrieff. It argued that the area used by vehicles in that case was situated on a remote Scottish island and that rights to turn vehicles were inappropriate in London suburbs. The judge disagreed, ruling that such rights are particularly important in confined urban spaces.
The landowner also relied on the fact that the owner of the garage used to obtain access to the garage over a legal right of way. However, owing to the erection of a hoarding, she had been forced to approach the turning area from a different direction and to trespass on land owned by another party. The judge ruled that this had not interrupted or affected her use of the turning area, and did not prevent her from establishing the prescriptive rights claimed.
He ordered the Land Registry to amend the charges register, but only to clarify the nature of the rights protected by the entry, by stating that the right of way had been acquired to turn vehicles into the adjoining garage.
Finally, it is also worth noting that the servient landowner had to apply for the cancellation of the entry in the charges register because its objection to the application for registration of the entry did not reach the Land Registry. Consequently, registered proprietors would be well-advised to ensure that the Land Registry has up-to-date addresses for service on them and should also check that important communications to the Land Registry are safely received.
Allyson Colby is a property law consultant
