Armstrong v Shepperd and Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384
The availability of an injunction for trespass where damage was very limited. Whether oral agreement could create an easement
Facts
The defendant built a sewer on land belonging to the claimant, but before doing so consulted with the claimant and the claimant raised no objection to the building. However, at this stage the claimant was not aware that he had an interest in the land because his title deeds were held with his mortgage lender. The defendant used the sewer for seven months without objection, but then, through a letter from his solicitor, the claimant instructed the defendant to remove the sewer. The claimant acknowledged that the sewer caused him no damage, but also stated that he had not been consulted about the building by the defendant. At first instance the trial judge awarded damages of 20 shillings and refused an injunction.
Issues
The issues in this circumstance were the extent of the defendant’s rights granted over the claimant’s land and the availability of an injunction and the extent of the damages awarded.
Decision/Outcome
On appeal, it was held that the claimant was not prevented from seeking an injunction on the basis that he had acquiesced to the building of the sewer because at that time he was not aware of his rights. However, the claimant, because he had misled the court and because of the minor nature of the complaint was not permitted an injunction. Despite this, the oral agreement to allow the building did not create an easement in favour of the defendant, merely a bare licence. In this respect, there could be no action for the building of the sewer because the claimant had agreed. However, once the solicitor’s letter was received, use of the sewer should have ceased because this revoked the licence. The result was that damages were payable for this use and the amount awarded at first instance was reasonable in the circumstances.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Armstrong v Shepperd and Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384. The core legal principles described — that acquiescence cannot operate as a bar to relief where the claimant was unaware of his rights; that an oral agreement of the kind described creates only a bare licence revocable on notice rather than an easement; and that a court retains discretion to refuse an injunction and award damages in lieu where damage is trivial or the claimant’s conduct warrants it — remain sound statements of English land law. These principles continue to be applied in modern cases concerning easements, licences, and the court’s equitable discretion on injunctive relief (see, for example, the approach confirmed in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13 regarding discretion to award damages in lieu of an injunction). No statutory changes have altered the relevant principles as applied on the facts of this case. The article is suitable for study purposes but readers should note it addresses a 1959 authority and should be read alongside more recent case law on easements and injunctive relief for a complete picture of the current law.
