11

I'm trying to understand a clause in a registry of land to determine the owner of an access way. The clause is for property 9.

"Except and reserving to the Transferor a right of way on foot only over that part of the access way included in this Transfer which is tinted blue on the said plan for the benefit of the Transferor and its successors in title the owner or owners for the time being of Numbers 7 and 11 (STREET NAME) aforesaid."

enter image description here

23

I would assume that the seller ('Transferor') still owned numbers 7 and 11 at the time of the sale. If so, this clause means that the owners of 7 and 11 (now and in the future) have a right of way on the path coloured blue on the plan. The land still belongs to number 9, but the owners cannot build on it so as to block the path. (As mckenzm comments, "on foot only" is an important qualification; the neighbours do not have a right to install utilities under the path, and the owner can put in obstacles that prevent bringing cycles down it).

  • 11
    "On foot only" is important. This is for pedestrian access. The Transferor cannot use the easement for utilities such as water, power, network or other purposes. – mckenzm Aug 19 at 1:08
  • Thank you, based on further queries I believe this to be correct. – Jake Aug 19 at 17:47
  • 1
    I would be careful about the "prevent bringing cycles" part. If you have a right of way on foot, that includes the right to carry whatever you can physically handle, and wheel a bike, push a pram or wheelbarrow, etc. Of course you can prevent riding a bike if you want to, so long as you don't prevent other things that are permitted. See boundary-problems.co.uk/boundary-problems/priv-r-o-w.html. – alephzero Aug 19 at 20:09
5

The clause confers an easement to the transferor (who at the time of the transfer owned properties 7 and 11), giving the transferor the right to use the highlighted path.

As it is a registered easement it is legally enforceable.

  • 8
    This is entirely true, but somebody having difficulty with phrasing including "right of way" is unlikely to be helped by substituting an unexplained "easement". – Tim Lymington supports Monica Aug 19 at 8:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.