Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Land Law > Easements > Flashcards

Easements Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Re Ellenborough Park 1956

A

criteria to identify an easement

  • DT and ST
  • DO and SO must be different people
  • must accommodate DT
  • the right must be capable of forming the subject matter of a grant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Woodmant v Pwllbach Colliery 1914

A

ST not properly identified

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

London & Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke Retail Parks 1994

A

DT not properly specified

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Hill v Tupper 1863

A

pleasure boats, the easement must benefit the land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Moody v Steggles 1879

A

benefiting business on DT held to accommodate DT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Copland v Greenhalf 1952

A

just because he use is business use does not prevent a right from being an easement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Clapman v Edwards 1938

A

a right to advertise on ST not specifically to advertise DT not an easement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Bailey v Stephens 1862

A

proximity necessary for easements

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Todrick v Western National Omnibus 1934

A

intervening land not fatal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Harris v Flower 1904

A

a right of way cannot be used to get to another piece of your land that is not ST

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Re William Aldred 1610

A

nice view not an easement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Browne v Flower 1904

A

privacy not an easement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Wright v Macadam 1949

A

coal shed - use of s62 plus exclusivity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Batchelor v Marlow 2000

A

parking: the test is - are you ousting SO from his property rights?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Moncrieff v Jamieson 2007

A

Scottish parking - does the SO retain possession and control of ST?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Virdi v Chana 2008

A

planting trees on ST where parking - still counts as retaining control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Phipps v Pears 1965

A

no easement of protection of a house from demolishing

18
Q

Manjang v Drammeh 1991

A

high degree of necessity required - the river case

19
Q

Nickerson v Barraclough 1981

A

doctrine of necessity founded on the implication of circumstances, not public policy

20
Q

Rudd v Bowles 1912

A

4 houses case, implied grant of a right of way into a transaction

21
Q

Wong v Beaumont 1965

A

duct needed for the business on DT to continue

22
Q

Stafford v Lee 1992

A

test for degree of necessity: common intention and reasonably necessary

23
Q

Wheeldon v Burrows 1879

A

no derogation from one’s grant

24
Q

Milkman v Ellis 1995

A

case where without an easement it would be dangerous to access the highway

25
Q

Wheeler v Saunders 1995

A

access retained from the minor road, no easement under Wheeldon as not necessary

26
Q

Mills v Silver 1991

A

right to use by modern lost grant, but not to improve

27
Q

London Tara Hotel v Kensington Close Hotel 2011

A

no permissive user, no prescription

28
Q

Risegold Ltd v Escala Ltd 2008

A

right to repair and maintenance could include access to build a new house on DT because common intention

29
Q

Alford v Hannaford 2011

A

right to pass does not include kettle as there was a reservation to specifically drive animals

30
Q

Dutta v Hayes 2012

A

agricultural use has a meaning in law that doesn’t include stud business

31
Q

White v Grand Hotel Eastbourne 1913

A

greatly increased use of way doesn’t mean SO can restrict it

32
Q

Todrick v Western National Omnibus 1934

A

ramp case - right of way for buses not implied in the right of way

33
Q

BR Board v Glass 1965

A

caravan side expanded and so did the use of way; held not excessive

34
Q

Jelbert v Davis 1968

A

proposed change of use of farm land to allow more than 200 caravans to excessive, the test is - did the user go beyond anything contemplated at the time of grant

35
Q

McAdams v Robinson 2005

A

test: SO can only object to a radical change in character or in identity of DT, resulting in a substantial increase/alteration of burden on ST

36
Q

Dewan v Lewis 2010

A

look at the actual use in the prescriptive easements cases

37
Q

Benn v Hardinge 1992

A

non-user for 175 years not enough to extinguish a right of way

38
Q

Dwyer v Westminster CC 2014

A

more than 40 years of non-use by CC, Dwyer put up locks and stuff, held to be too short to prove abandonment

39
Q

end of an easement

A
  • operation of law
  • unity of fee simple ownership
  • by statute
  • express or implied release by DO
  • abandonment: non-user plus intention to relinquish the right
40
Q

extent of express easements

A

depends on words used, also intention

41
Q

extent of implied grant easements

A

the right is such as is necessary for reasonable enjoyment

42
Q

extent of prescriptive easements

A

at use to which ST has been put and what SO has tolerated

Land Law (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions