A family in the south of the island has been ordered to reinstate a right of way that crosses their land.

Philippus and Louna Vermeulen were taken to court by neighbours over access to a lane which forms part of their property.

In his ruling, Deemster Paul Morris outlined that the six claimants believed that they have a right of way to pass over the land which forms part of the property owned by the Vermeulens.

The claimants also alleged that between May and August 2021, the Vermeulens, or people working for them, caused the right of way to be obstructed by erecting and locking gates, extending a stone wall and removing a pathway which previously traversed the Herring House land.

All six of the claimants, Harbour House Limited, Andrew and Rachel Titley, Mike Dean, Richard Jeffries and Mary Douglas, own terraced properties that abut Fort Island high road in Derbyhaven.

In the simplest terms, the land owned by the terraced properties is split in two by a lane, with gardens, patios etc, being on the side of the Derbyhaven shoreline.

Mr and Mrs Vermuleun are the owners of the Herring House, which is currently occupied by their daughter, Loni Evans and son-in-law Johnny Evans and their two children.

Deemster Morris said: ‘Herring House also consists of two parcels of land.

‘The living accommodation is on the Castletown Golf Links side of the Fort Island high road and, on the opposite, seashore side of the road, there is a plot of land which has recently been converted into another recreational area through the works of which the claimants complain.

‘It is over this part of the Herring House property that the alleged right of way which is the substance of the claim and the status quo application is said to pass.’

The claimants argued that the lane forms part of a continuous way between Derbyhaven high road and the Fort Island high road, that the lane passes over the slipway and continues over the Herring House land and therefore forms part of the continuous lane which they and their successors in title (subsequent owners) or lawful invitees are entitled to a right of way over the entire land.

They said that this had been an ongoing right, dating back in excess of 21 years.

The Vermuleuns deny the existence of a right of way as claimed or at all.

They said that after initially offering to leave the gates unlocked, they chose to lock them because the claimants refused to confirm that the gate would be closed.

This, they told the hearing, was necessary to ensure the enjoyment of their property, but also the safety of their infant grandchildren and that if his request that the gates be closed were agreed to, then he wouldn’t have locked them.

Throughout the three-day hearing, the court heard evidence which suggested that there was a long precedent of unimpeded access across the Herring House land, dating back to 1937. However, the Vermeulens argued that this was only with consent during the time that they have owned the house.

Deemster Morris said this may be ‘more accurately classed as evidence of a non- objection or an acquiescence to the continuation of the customary usage’.

Mr and Mrs Vermeuleun said that as far as they were concerned, there was an alternative means of access/egress to the lane via the slipway, over which there is a grant of a right of way which is a continuation of that provided by the lane. They also argued that the route across their land has never been an extension of the lane, that there is no ‘express grant of such a right in the title of the Herring House’ and that no attempt has ever been made to formalise any alleged existence.

lane

Neither, they and their witnesses say, have vehicles ever used the lane other than tradesmen.

Unfortunately for the Vermeulens, Deemster Morris sided with the owners of the terraced properties, saying they had blocked up a right of way which crosses the Vermeulen’s land.

He added: ‘The defendants are ordered either to remove the gates or alternatively to replace the gates with “kissing gates” or similar gates which provide both unimpeded access on foot and safety in the garden for the defendants’ family.’