Monogram Technologies Limited v Waterlane Properties Limited

An appellate court may interfere with a discretionary declaration where the lower court has adopted an erroneous approach to the form of relief. A declaration must provide an effective resolution of the dispute and may need to specify the practical steps required to protect established rights. A bare statement of the legal position is inadequate where the parties’ relationship has deteriorated and further disputes are likely. In a right-of-way case, the question is whether the right can be substantially and practically exercised as conveniently as before. A proposed use which materially impairs manoeuvring may constitute substantial interference, even if the difficulty is infrequent. Where the evidence does not permit the appellate court to determine the necessary detail, the issue should be remitted with appropriate directions.

Waterlane Properties Ltd appealed against an order made by the County Court at Bristol following a trial concerning a right of way and parking rights over a car park strip belonging to Monogram Technologies Ltd. The trial judge found that Waterlane had rights of way and parking, and that substantial occupation of parking spaces along the eastern wall would significantly interfere with those rights. He nevertheless made only a general declaration that Monogram must not substantially interfere with the right of way.

Waterlane argued that the declaration failed to reflect the findings and did not provide practical protection against further interference. Monogram relied on the wide discretion governing declaratory relief and the absence of evidence establishing the precise parking configuration required. The central issue was whether the general declaration was a lawful and effective form of relief in the circumstances.

1. Appeal allowed. The general declaration was replaced and the issue of the precise parking configuration was remitted to the County Court with directions.
2. The court accepted that appellate intervention in discretionary declaratory relief is limited. The appellate court should not substitute its own view merely because another order might have been preferable. Intervention was justified here because the judge adopted an erroneous approach to the consequences hearing and failed to give effect to his own factual findings.
3. Declaratory relief must do the fullest justice between the parties and should be effective in resolving the dispute. The court must consider whether the declaration serves a useful purpose and whether it is the most effective method of resolving the issues. By March 2020 the parties’ relationship had deteriorated, the dispute had continued, and a bare declaration left the practical protection of the right of way unresolved. A particularised order was therefore required.
4. The trial judge had found that full, or substantially increased, occupation of the parking spaces along the eastern wall would create significant difficulty in manoeuvring from Waterlane’s parking area. Applying the principles in B&Q plc v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Limited [2000] All ER 1059, that amounted to substantial interference with the right of way. The relevant test was convenience, not necessity, and infrequent interference could still be actionable.
5. The court distinguished Jelbert v Davis [1968] I WLR 589. The circumstances had moved beyond the stage at which a broad declaration might have been adequate, and the later deterioration between the parties required a more precise order.
6. The evidence before the appellate court did not establish which of the competing parking configurations best protected the right of way while preserving Monogram’s lawful use. The issue was therefore remitted for further evidence and determination, with the parties required to identify the spaces which must be removed from usable parking.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed Waterlane’s appeal against the County Court at Bristol order dated 8 April 2020. The relevant paragraph was replaced and the precise parking issue was remitted to the County Court.
• County Court at Bristol: Following the 2019 trial, declared that Monogram must not substantially interfere with Waterlane’s right of way, but declined to include a more specific prohibition concerning parking on or over the right of way.