Parties’ predecessors in title involved in scheme for land development based upon site plan — Predecessors in title and appellant meeting to resolve difficulties with access — Work undertaken in accordance with access plan — Access plan not in accordance with site plan — Appellant taking title of land and denying access upon basis of erroneous plan — Whether appellant estopped from proceeding — Appeal dismissed
The appellant was party to a scheme for the development of land. The eastern half of the land included various agricultural buildings and the western half was rough and uncultivated. Outline planning consent was granted for three new dwellings on the western land, which were sold to the respondents’ predecessors in title as building plots. Difficulties arose in respect of access to the plots and the parties met to address the problem. They agreed that access would be provided across the eastern land on the condition that the respondents’ predecessors in title constructed the roads and boundary walls, the latter to be built using stone from the appellant’s company. It was not appreciated by the parties at this stage that the plan that accompanied the land transfers did not wholly accord with the plan that was used to agree the question of access.
The appellant acquired ownership of the western land. He subsequently brought proceedings to prohibit trespass by the respondents over his land upon the ground that the agreement was invalid because it had been formulated on the basis of incorrect plans. The respondents maintained that the appellant was estopped from proceeding against them.
At first instance, the judge found for the respondents on the basis that: (i) the appellant’s predecessor in title was estopped from denying the right of way, and the resulting equitable easement was an overriding interest binding upon the appellant as his successor in title; and (ii) the appellant was personally estopped as he himself had been involved in the original agreement, and had allowed work to be done by the respondents in reliance upon it after he had become the owner of the property. The appellant appealed that decision.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The judge had been correct in his analysis of the evidence and his findings as to the nature of the estoppel binding upon the appellant. Although the complex series of grants and transfers of land meant that the appellant and the respondents had not necessarily all been parties to the same transaction at the same time, they were all participants in the same project from which they had all benefited. The parties, acting in concert, had determined the layout of the development scheme and their responsibilities arising as a result, and had all proceeded accordingly. The appellant could not then assert rights inconsistent with the terms of that agreement. All the parties, including the appellant, had acted upon the basis of the arrangements made and they were all estopped from denying them.
Paul Marshall (instructed by Langleys, of Lincoln) appeared for the appellant; Ian Leeming QC and James Stuart (instructed by The Ringrose Law Group, of Lincoln) appeared for the first respondent; Ian Leeming QC and Dr Annette Prand (instructed by Herbert Mallam Gowers, of Oxford) appeared for the second and third respondents.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
