Heading

Case No: LC-2023-698
AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL (PROPERTY CHAMBER)
FTT REF: 2022/0137
Royal Courts of Justice,
London WC2A
29 July 2024
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
LAND REGISTRATION – EASEMENTS – whether right of way acquired by prescription over private road – sign warning of no public right of way – whether sufficient to make use of way by neighbours contentious – period of interruption – ss.2, 4, Prescription Act 1832 – appeal allowed
BETWEEN:
MR MOHAMMED SAGIER
Appellant
-and-
MRS HARBANS KAUR
Respondent
60 Victoria Park Road,
Smethwick,
Birmingham B66
Martin Rodger KC,
Deputy Chamber President
14 May 2024
Mr Michael Buckpitt and Mr Paul Wilmshurst, instructed directly, for the appellant
Ms Anya Newman, instructed by Mezzle Solicitors, for the respondent
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
Dalton v. Angus & Co. (1881) 6 App.Cas. 740
Newnham v Willison (1987) 56 P&CR 8, 18
Nicholson v Hale [2024] UKUT 153 (LC)
R. (Lewis v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (No. 2) [2010] 2 AC 70
R. v Oxfordshire County Council ex p Sunningwell Parish Council [2000] 1 AC 335
Reilly v Orange [1955] 2 QB 112
Taylor v Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 250; [2012] 2 P & CR 3
Welford v Graham [2017] UKUT 297 (TCC)
Winterburn v Bennett [2016] EWCA Civ 482, [2017] 1 WLR 646
- Heading
- Introduction
- The facts
- The proceedings
- Relevant legal principles
- Inference of a lost modern grant
- Prescription Act 1832
- The burden of proof
- The FTT’s decision
- The grounds of appeal
- Issue 1: Was the Judge wrong to dismiss the claim under the Prescription Act 1832 ?
- Issue 2: Did the single oral protest make any difference?
- Issue 3: Did the display of signs prevent the acquisition of prescriptive rights?
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 217 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)