Easements

Citation

Waterson, G. and Lee, R. (2001), "Easements", Property Management, Vol. 19 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.2001.11319dab.006

Easements

Easements

B&Q plc v. Liverpool & Lancashire Properties Ltd [2001] 15 EG 138

Cases involving alleged interference with the complainant's rights of easement are relatively few and far between, but nonetheless important. In this case, B&Q held the lease of a large warehouse unit (Unit 1) on a retail park in Merseyside, comprising four units in all. The freeholder proposed to construct a 3,500 sq. ft (325m²) extension to one of the other units (Unit 2A) adjacent to that which was occupied by B&Q.The unit occupied by B&Q was by far the largest of the four units, extending to some 150,000 sq. ft (13,935m²). The other units were very much smaller, Units 2A and 2B each being approximately 10,000 sq. ft (9,290m²). The layout of the retail park was such that delivery access into the rear service area of Unit 1 necessarily involved passage over a common service road going through the service yards at the rear of Units 2A and 2B and thence into the delivery yard of Unit 1. B&Q claimed that if the proposed extension to Unit 2A were to be constructed it would seriously impede access to Unit 1.

The detailed facts of the case, and of the events preceding it are complicated, involving, among other things, a consideration of the nature of the rights enjoyed by B&Q over the rear service road, consideration of the need for adequate turning circles to accommodate large delivery vehicles, and an analysis of the actual use made of the service road on a day-to-day basis, supported by a breakdown of video-tape evidence.

However, the basic question revolved around whether or not the proposed extension would unreasonably obstruct the right for vehicles serving B&Q to pass and re-pass along the rear service road. On balance, yes, said the court. In the words of Blackburne J., "Viewing the evidence as a whole, I have come to the conclusion that difficulties will occur sufficiently frequently to justify B&Q's complaint that its right to pass over, and turn within the yard [at the rear of Unit 2A] will have been rendered materially less convenient than before." On that basis, B&Q were entitled to an injunction to prevent the construction of the proposed extension behind Unit 2A.

Readers may wish to note that Peacock v. Custins (summarised in Property Management 19(2) at p. 173) has now been more fully reported in the Estate Gazette 31 March 2001 at [2001] 13 EG 152.