|
Prescription – right of way |
|
|
An LA acquired land in 1966 which included a vehicular right of access over
private land. On the conveyance, the width of the access was estimated at
12 feet, whilst the width as used by the LA vehicles was 13-14 feet. Could
the LA argue that it acquired an extended right of way by prescription? It was
held not.
In this case, there had been no ‘acquiescence’ (since the owner of
the private land had complained since the early 1980s). The law of
prescription does not apply unless there has been acquiescence, and thus
time could not run (by the time the complaints had started, the unlawful use
had not been for the minimum period of 20 years). Field Common v Elbridge
BC [2005] All ER (D) 91.
|
|
July 2006 |
