BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) >> Laurence Ian Bennion v (1) John Thomas Bennion (2) Denise Ann Burgess (Easements and profits a prendre : Easements and profits a prendre) [2019] UKFTT 159 (PC) (11 February 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/PC/2019/159.html Cite as: [2019] UKFTT 159 (PC) |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
| Case reference | REF/2017/0300 |
|---|---|
| Date of decision | 11/02/2019 |
| Adjudicator | Mr Daniel Dovar |
| Applicant | Laurence Ian Bennion |
| Respondent | (1) John Thomas Bennion (2) Denise Ann Burgess |
| Main Category & Sub Category | |
| Category | Easements and profits a prendre |
| Sub Category | Construction of express grant |
| Secondary Category & Sub Category | |
| Category | Alteration and rectification of the register |
| Sub Category | Actual occupation |
| Decision notes | [2019] UKFTT 159 PC. Application for rectification under Schedule 4 to note the benefit of a right of way against the Applicant's title. The Applicant relied on a will and an assent to establish the grant of the right of way. The will was clear in granting the right, the assent much less so, but there was an ambiguity in what it did grant. I considered that I could construe the assent in the context of the will and therefore resolved the ambiguity in favour of the Applicant. The Respondents were in possession of the adjacent land, were not accused of fraud or lack of proper care and objected - whether unjust not to make the alteration. It would have been, there was no discernible loss to the Respondent, but as the Respondents pointed out, it was a valuable and convenient route for the Applicant. HELD therefore that the right of way be registered. |
| Download decision(s) | [2019] UKFTT 159 PC |
