The High Court emphasised in Lyons v Breslin (HC, 7/3/2012) that when a purchaser has knowledge that a property has no drive-on access prior to purchasing the property, except for a shared right of way with a neighbour, and subsequently purchases the property, the purchaser cannot then claim the property is landlocked under section 327 of the Property Law Act 2007 ( PLA) and therefore claim an entitlement to park a vehicle on the right of way on a permanent basis.
The judge identified that B’s property had reasonable access necessary to enable B and its occupiers to use and enjoy the land pursuant to section 326 of the PLA. Therefore, it was not landlocked for the purpose of section 327. While this may be inconvenient, such inconvenience did not diminish in any significant way the use and enjoyment of the property. Owners, occupiers and purchasers contemplating a property with no vehicle drive on access cannot reasonably expect to extend their rights in a right-of-way due to frustration and inconvenience. Where more permanent drive on access is required this ought to be discussed rationally between neighbours instead of through the courts.