Easements

L

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 29-02-16 11:52
Bailey v Stephens (1862)
The right must have some natural connection with the estate as being for its benefit
1 of 58
Re Ellenborough Park (1956)
4 essential characters of an easement: dom and servient tenements; right must benefit land; must be diversity of ownership or at least occ; right must be capable of lying in grant
2 of 58
London & Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke (1994)
The grantor and grantee of the ‘easement’ did NOT, at time of the grant, hold the respective estates in the dom and servient tenements
3 of 58
Moody v Steggles (1879)
The sign has to advertise the business and not merely some product sold there
4 of 58
Hill v Tupper (1863)
It could not be said that the right benefitted a business carried out on the dom tenement as his business was instead carried out on the servient tenement
5 of 58
Pugh v Savage (1970)
Although the dom and servient tenements need not be adjoining, they must be sufficiently proximate for a practical benefit to be conferred (see Bailey v Stephens)
6 of 58
Sweet v Sommer (2004)
It is permissible to have an easement where the servient tenement is owned by, e.g. husband and wife, and dom tenement owned by husband alone
7 of 58
Moncrieff v Jamieson (2007) and Dowty (No 2) (1976)
Relatively new easements e.g. to park a car and to use an airfield
8 of 58
Keppel v Bailey (1834)
Lord Brougham: incidents of a novel kind cannot be devised at the fancy or caprice of any owner
9 of 58
Hill v Tupper (1863)
Perceived danger of too many types of easements is land might become unduly burdened by a plethora of 3rd party claims
10 of 58
Browne v Lower (1911)
There is no easement of privacy
11 of 58
Sweet v Sommer (2004)
The alleged servient tenement was jointly owned by husband and wife, dom owned by husband, and a purported grant of a right of way by the husband was held to be invalid because he alone was NOT a capable grantor
12 of 58
Harris v De Pinna (1886)
There is no right to a view, protection from weather and to a general flow of air over land
13 of 58
Rance v Elvin (1983)
Right is unlikely to qualify as easement if it involves expenditure by servient owner (exception of fence (Crow v Wood (1971))
14 of 58
Phipps v Pears (1965)
Neg right is unlikely to qualify as easement
15 of 58
Copeland v Greenhalf (1952)
An easement is a right of way over someone else’s land and, if the right amountstto exclusive or joint use, it contradicts the ownership rights of the servient owner
16 of 58
Grigsby v Melville (1972)
Right to store goods in a cellar was rejected as an easement as it would give an exclusive right of use – this amounts to a pos claim to legal possession
17 of 58
Ward v Kirkland (1969)
Right to enter on servient land to repair wall on dom land was an easement as it involvd only a trace of exclusive use by the dom owner
18 of 58
Moncrieff v Jamieson (2007)
A right giving dom owner sole use of part of servient tenement does not prevent it from being an easement, but where the dom owner has been given exclusive possession this would not be consistent with such a right
19 of 58
Walby v Walby (2012)
Morgan J: the implication of a grant of an easement may be approp to enable the grantee to enjoy that which has been expressly granted
20 of 58
Re Webb’s Lease (1951)
The onus is on the vendor to reserve an easement expressly in the conveyance
21 of 58
Peckham v Ellison (1998)
Implied grants are based upon notion that there shall be no derogation from the grant and are more common than implied reservations
22 of 58
Pinnington v Gallard (1853)
Easements of nec are implied usually in landlocked close situations so that the dom owner can gain access to the dom tenement
23 of 58
Walby v Walby (2012)
Morgan J: test for nec = strict and the facts must be sucvh that the land retained cannot be used at all without the implication of an easement
24 of 58
Manjang v Drammeh (1991)
3 conditions reqd for easement of nec: common owner; only one access route (Donaldson (2006)); not excluded by express contrary intentions of parties (Hillman (1997))
25 of 58
Adealon International v Merton LBC (2007)
CA: an easement of nec could arise in a tripartite scenario where the vendor retained land which was cut off from the highway, however, one of the burdening plots of land was owned by a 3rd party
26 of 58
Titchmarsh v Royston (1899)
The land could still be accessed by climbing a 20ft cutting – thus, no easement of nec implied
27 of 58
Manjang v Drammeh (1991)
PC: an available access by water, although less convenient than access by land, was sufficient to negate easement by nec
28 of 58
Sweet v Sommer (2004)
Possibility of demolishing shed to gain alt access did not prevent easement of nec being implied
29 of 58
Stafford v Lee (1993)
A right of way for construction while a house was being built was implied as it was the common intention of the parties that the house was to be erected on the dom land
30 of 58
Wong v Beaumont (1965)
Implied easements for ventilation system – common intention to have restaurant
31 of 58
Re Webb’s Lease (1951)
In approp circums, a common intention easement can be impliedly reserved – however, it must be shown that the facts are not reasonably consistent with any explanation other than that such a reservation was intended
32 of 58
Walby v Walby (2012)
Morgan J: it is not sufficient that the facts are simply consistent with the implication of the reservation of an easement
33 of 58
Davies v Bramwell (2007)
2 stage approach: court must find a common intention that dom land should be used in particular way; the grant or reservn must be required to give effect to that intention
34 of 58
Wheeldon v Burrows (1879)
When a vendor sells of part of his land, the purchaser will acquire through implication all of those continuous and apparent quasi-easements which are nec to the reasonable enjoyment of the prop granted, and which have been and are at the timeof the
35 of 58
Loveluck-Edwards (2012)
Subj to conditions in Wheeldon v Burrows, upon the grant of part of a tenement, it will be implied that the buyer will acquire all quasi-easements over land retained by vendor
36 of 58
Kent v Kavanagh (2006)
There must be common ownership and occupation of entirety of the land prior to Wheeldon v Burrows being triggered – one without other is insufficient
37 of 58
Schwann v Cotton (1916)
The vendor must have sold the dom tenement and retained the rest
38 of 58
Wright v Macadam (1940)
The permissive right to use a coal shed passed as a legal easement under s 62 on the grant of a new lease
39 of 58
Wheeler v JJ Saunders (1995)
Both conditions of reasonably nec to the enjoyment of the land and the right being continuous and apparent must be satisfied
40 of 58
Loveluck-Edwards (2012)
Morgan J: not by force, or contentiously, not secretly or by stealth and not precariously or by permission; here, oral gentleman’s agreement made use precario
41 of 58
London Tara Hotels (2011)
The use must satisfy tripartite test of no force, no stealth, no permission – there is no further test; also, silent acquiescence is not the same as permission
42 of 58
Kent v Kavanagh (2006)
Claim to a prescriptive easement to use a path failed as owner had asked permission to use it
43 of 58
Goldsmith v Burrow Construction (1987)
A right of way used precariously (blocked at irregular intervals) cannot develop into an easement
44 of 58
Davis v Whitby (1974)
User can be by successive owners of the dom tenement
45 of 58
Simmons v Dobson (1991)
Gen rule = easements cannot be prescribed for by one tenant against another tenant of the same landlord
46 of 58
Bakewell Management v Brandwood (2004)
This would be an unlawful grant and incapable of vesting any right in the guarantee
47 of 58
London Tara Hotels (2011)
Lord Neuberger MR: the law of prescription is complex in that ity consists of a no of sets of diff rules; notoriously ill-drafted Prescription Act 1832
48 of 58
Loveluck-Edwards (2012)
Claimants could not rely on common law prescription because the tenements had not been in common ownership sometime around 1920 – also, def’s obstructing and barring of the right of way for 8yrs before commencement of proceedings prevented a prescrip
49 of 58
Dalton v Angus (1881)
If a claimant can show actual enjoyment for a period of 20yrs, the court is prepared to pretend that there was once a grant that has now been lost
50 of 58
Tehidy Minerals v Norman (1971)
The claim may be defeated if proof is given that during the entire period since user started there has been no person capable of granting easements
51 of 58
Colls v Home and Colonial Stones (1904)
The amount of light that a building is entitled to is that which is required for any ordinary purpose for which the building has been constructed or adapted
52 of 58
MacAdams Homes v Robinson (2004)
The dom land was redeveloped with the result that a former bakery was demolished and replaced by 2 detached houses
53 of 58
Cook v Bath (1868)
An easement over the passageway to which the back door gave access was held to be abandoned after being bricked up for 40yrs
54 of 58
Huckvale v Aegan Hotels (1989)
If there is no longer any practical possibility of the easement ever again benefitting the dom land tenement in the manner originally contemplated, the easement will lapse
55 of 58
National Guarantee Manure v Donald (1859)
A right to a defined supply of water to a canal ceased to exist when the canal was later filled up and turned into a railway
56 of 58
CDC2020 v Ferreira (2005)
A right of way to reach garages was not abandoned even though the garages were demolished and replaced by a basement car park
57 of 58
Benn v Hardinge (1992)
Non-user for 175 years of a right of way granted in 1818 did NOT of itself indicate an intention to abandon
58 of 58

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

4 essential characters of an easement: dom and servient tenements; right must benefit land; must be diversity of ownership or at least occ; right must be capable of lying in grant

Back

Re Ellenborough Park (1956)

Card 3

Front

The grantor and grantee of the ‘easement’ did NOT, at time of the grant, hold the respective estates in the dom and servient tenements

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

The sign has to advertise the business and not merely some product sold there

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

It could not be said that the right benefitted a business carried out on the dom tenement as his business was instead carried out on the servient tenement

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Land resources »