In Trident House Development Limited v Yousaf [2025] the High Court granted Trident an access order pursuant to the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 (the 1992 Act) but found it had failed to establish that it had suffered any loss as a result of Mr Yousaf's conduct in delaying completion of a development project.
Trident acquired Galem House, a derelict textile warehouse, in Bradford, with a view to regenerating the site and constructing 77 new apartments.
Mr Yousaf, owned a car park (the Car Park) adjacent to Galem House. Part of Galem House included a wall in poor condition which abutted the Car Park.
Trident wanted to rebuild the wall and include windows, to which Mr Yousaf objected, arguing that it would have a negative impact on his ability to re-develop his own property in the future.
The wall was unsafe and Trident therefore commenced work to take it down with which Mr Yousaf interfered, trespassing and causing a nuisance which delayed progress for Trident on site and in respect of which Trident issued an injunction application compelling Mr Yousaf to remove his own additions to the wall (which was granted) and a damages claim.
The High Court dismissed the damages claim on the basis that Trident had not properly established that the delay had caused any loss.
The remaining matter for the court was to approve the terms of an access order that Trident had applied for and with which Mr Yousaf had agreed despite his earlier conduct and objections.
The Judge considered in detail whether he had the power to make the access order requested and whether to make provision for Trident to pay Mr Yousaf consideration for the privilege of accessing the car park and held that:
- The works to the wall constituted basic preservation works of "maintenance, repair or renewal" pursuant to section 1(4)(a) of the 1992 Act;
- The works were reasonably necessary and incidental to the preservation works; and
- It was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to regard the works as reasonably necessary renewal.
The Judge granted the access order on this basis and also decided it would be fair and reasonable for Trident to pay Mr Yousaf £3,500 taking a broad-brush approach in view of the limited valuation evidence available.
This is one of very few High Court cases which has considered the 1992 Act. It provides welcome guidance from the Court as to their interpretation and application of the 1992 Act and is a reminder that it is there as back up in the event that an access licence cannot be agreed with neighbouring land owners.
