Cases - Bridle v Ruby
Record details
- Name
- Bridle v Ruby
- Date
- [1989]
- Citation
- QB 169
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Right of light - Prescription Act 1832
- Summary
-
The plaintiff (the owner of no. 13) and his predecessor mistakenly believed that the conveyance of no. 13 expressly contained a right of way over the driveway of no. 12 and had used the right of way for 22 years under this mistaken belief. In fact, a clause providing for such a right of way had been deleted in the final draft of the conveyance of no. 13, so that there was no such express right. The plaintiff claimed a right of way on the basis (among others) of lost modern grant. The defendant argued that an easement could not be acquired by a party by prescription on the basis of a mistaken view as to his rights.
The Court of Appeal held that asserting a right in the mistaken belief that it is an express right does not negative a claim by prescription, whether at common law, by lost modern grant or under the Prescription Act. The requirement that user is as of right means that the owner of the servient land is given sufficient opportunity of knowing that the plaintiff is, by his conduct, asserting the right to do what he is doing without the owner's permission. It does not prevent the plaintiff acquiring a right because he is mistaken as to his rights. In this case, there was no trace of temporary permission or a series of temporary permissions to prevent the enjoyment being as of right.