CLOSE SEARCH
We acted for a homeowner in proceedings before the Central London County Court arising from a shared driveway subject to reciprocal rights of way.
What began as a dispute about building works and access arrangements developed into further litigation and disputes over legal fees.
The parties owned neighbouring residential properties sharing a driveway over which each enjoyed rights of way.
The Defendants commenced court proceedings contending that the proposed building works would unlawfully interfere with their right of way over the shared driveway, and seeking to restrict how those works could be carried out.
Those proceedings were resolved when our client gave a personal undertaking to the Court limiting certain works.
Shortly afterwards, the Defendants sold their property. The undertaking had been given to them personally.
This raised a fundamental legal issue - if the undertaking was personal to the Defendants, could it continue to restrict our client once they no longer owned the property benefiting from the right of way?
Despite repeated written requests seeking confirmation of their position and consent to discharge the undertaking, the Defendants did not engage.
Given the serious consequences of breaching a court undertaking, including potential contempt proceedings, our client could not safely proceed with works without formal clarification from the Court.
What could have been resolved by correspondence therefore required further litigation.
To remove the uncertainty, our client:
Issued court proceedings seeking a declaration that the proposed works would not breach the undertaking; and
Applied formally for the undertaking to be discharged.
Although properly served with the claim and hearing notice, the Defendants did not attend the hearing and provided no substantive evidence in response.
The Court ordered that:
The undertaking be discharged, on the basis that it was personal to the Defendants and they no longer owned the property benefiting from the right of way; and
The Defendants pay our client’s costs of both sets of proceedings.
The Court applied the established principle that costs follow the event, particularly where a party has failed to engage with correspondence and does not attend a properly listed hearing.
Rather than bringing matters to a close, the Defendants subsequently applied to vary the costs orders.
In substance, they sought to argue that our client, despite succeeding, should bear the costs.
The application was:
Procedurally defective
Unsupported by evidence
Without any proper basis for interfering with the Court’s earlier exercise of discretion
The Court dismissed the application in its entirety and awarded our client a further £6,000 in costs.
Undertaking discharged.
Original costs orders upheld.
Defendants’ application dismissed.
Further £6,000 awarded to the Claimant.
This case highlights several important realities of neighbour disputes involving rights of way:
Issues about access during building works can become highly contentious.
Disputes can continue even after a property has been sold.
Legal costs can escalate rapidly and become disproportionate to the original issue.
Ignoring legal correspondence or failing to attend court hearings carries significant risk.
Attempts to reopen decisions without proper grounds may result in further adverse costs orders.
Neighbour disputes often begin with a narrow practical disagreement, but without early, strategic engagement they can develop into prolonged and expensive litigation.
Get in touch
If you would like to speak with a member of the team you can contact us on:
