Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179

Facts: Crabb's land had an access point A on to a road owned by the Council and a right of way (a type of easement) from A along the road. Crabb wanted his land in two parts. He sought from the Council another access point B on to the road and another right of way. This was agreed by all. The Council then erected gates at both A & B. Crabb sold the part of land with access point A together with the right of way, without reserving any right re: the land retained. Crabb later padlocked the gate at B, which caused a dispute. The Council then removed the gate and fenced the gap. Crabb put a lock on the gate and the Council had to knock the gate down.  Crabb asked the Council to rebuild the gate but they demanded. 

Issue: What remedy was granted?

Held (Court of Appeal): Claim allowed. 

Held (Lord Denning MR): For over a year, the defendants had not indicated their intention to resile from the agreement and as the claimant has acted to his detriment, it would be unconscionable for the defendants to go back on this agreement.

Held (Scarman LJ, pg 199): “The effect of [the defendant’s] action has been to sterilise the plaintiff’s land;...such action was an infringement of an equitable right possessed by the plaintiff. It has involved him in loss, which has not been measured; but, since it amounted to sterilisation of an industrial estate for a very considerable period of time, it must surpass any sort of sum of money which the plaintiff ought reasonably, before it was done, to have paid the defendants in order to obtain an enforceable legal right.”