Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/50

Click to flip

50 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Re Ellenborough Park

the four requirements of easements

1)Ladbroke Retail parks

there must be a dominant and servient land

2)Hill v Tupper

the right must accomodate the dominant tenement

3)Roe v Siddons

must be diversity of ownership/occupation of S&D land

4)Chaffe

right must lie in grant

Bailey

s and d land must be sufficiently proximate

Dyce

list of easements can be expanded upon

Phipps

courts are reluctant to acknowledge new negative easements

Regis

servient owner should not be obliged to spend money

Jones

servient owner is under no obligation to maintain and repair

Copeland

an easement cannot exist where it gives the dominant owner exclusive use of the servient land

Miller

nature of the right is influential-toilet had to be exclusive possession but only for a short time

Hair

1 parking space out of 4 is an easement

Batchelor

exclusive weekday use of a parking space could not be an easement

Green v Ashco

the need to constantly seek permission to use the right precludes it from being an easement

Express acquisition of an easement

grant
reservation

Implied grant

-out of necessity
-out of common intention
-s62
-Wheeldon v Burrows Rule

Pryce

necessity means it must be essential to the use of the land

Manjang

an alternative less convenient access route may preclude a right of way arising through necessity

Adealon

it may depend upon how realistic the alternative is

Nickerson

implied grant is subject to contrary intention

Wong v Beaumont Property trust

easement can be implied through common intention, where it is essential for a specific use of the land

s62 LPA 1925

passes all existing rights to successor in title

Macadam

s62-a t's revocable licence to store coal in a coal shed converted upon granting of a new lease into a legal easement

s62 LPA criteria

-there must be a conveyance
-right must exist at the date of the conveyance-Penn
-there must be diversity of occupation prior to conveyance-Sovmots

Payne

diversity of occupation is not required for an easement of light

P&S Platt

diversity was necessary where the right in question was continuous and apparent

Wheeldon v Burrows

-elevates quasi easements into full easements

Kent

for WvB there must be common ownership and occupation prior to the conveyance

Hansford

the right must be continuous and apparent, eg worn tarmac road across a field

Wheeler

-must be more than a mere convenience
-right must be necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the dominant land

Prescription

-common law
-lost modern grant
-prescription act 1932

Prescription 3 conditions

-user must be as of right, nec vi, nec clam, nec precario-Mills
-user must be continuous, 3 times in 20 years was insufficient-Hollins
-user must be by/on behalf of a fee simple owner against another

Common law

user must show there has been 20 years continuous use. can be rebutted by showing it wasnt used at any time since 1189

Lost modern grant

20 years of continuous use, courts presume it was done by deed

Tehidy

cant rebut LMG presumption with evidence that a grant was never made

Oakley

it can only be rebutted by evidence that a grant was legally impossible

Prescription act 1832

-not applicable to rights of light
-must establish either 20 or 40 years uninterrupted use

20 years use

will be defeated by oral or written consent

40 years use

will only be defeated by written consent

Flight v Thomas

an interruption of less than a year will not defeat a claim

right to light

20 yrs use will result in an absolute and indefeasible easement being acquired unless it is by written consent-s3

Legal Easements

-created by competent grantor
-created by deed s52 LPA
-equivalent in duration to a legal estate in land-s1(2)(a) LPA
-expressly acquired by grant or reservation
-reg land-reg in accordance w s27(2)(a) LRA 2002

Equitable easements

-created merely in compliance with s53(1)(a) LPA\
-created by an equitable estate owner
-failue of legal formalities, but still an enforceable contract-Walsh v Lonsdale

Enforcement of easements-Registered land-Legal

-expressly acquired-must be registered to be automatically binding
-impliedly acquired-overriding interest under sch3 para 2, must be actually known to the purchase, obvious on reasonably careful inspection and exercised w/n 1 year prior to disposition

Enforcement of easements-Registered land-equitable

express or implied-if entered as a notice it will be binding s32 LRA 2002
-if not entered as a notice, will not bind a purchaser for value-s29 LRA
-will not be an overriding interest

Enforcement of easements-Unregistered land-legal

binds the world

Enforcement of easements-Unregistered land-equitable

-class d3 land charge-will be binding s198 LPA
-if not registered, will not bind a purchaser of a legal estate, s4(6)LCA

s62 LPA

benefit of an easement will auto pass to the successor in title

Termination of easements

-merger of S&D land
-release-express, implied or statute
-change of character-Attwood-change of use if D land which leads to substantial increase in the burden on the S Land-easement may be terminated