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:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

London & Blenheim Estates Ltd

A

Must be two separate and identifiable pieces of land, grantor and grantee must both own interests in land at the time of the grant

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

Hawkins v Rutter

A

An easement cannot exist in “gross” but must be attached to the land

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

Hill v Tupper

A

Personal benefit (license) of not landing canal boats does not accommodate a dominant tenement

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

Moody v Steggles

A

Right to hang a sign on a pub on an adjoining house was held to be an easement as it had been there for over 200 years and was inextricably linked

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

Wong v Beaumont Property Trust

A

Ventilation duct for a restaurant, capable of constituting an easement as it constituted to the dominant tenement as a restaurant.

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

Mounsey v Ismay

A

Annual horse race, LJ Martin the right must be of utility and benefit, not recreation and amusement

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

Kennerley v Beech

A

Right to a path ending in the middle of a garden did not confer an actual benefit

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

International Tea Stores v Hobbs

A

Landlord allowed tenant a short cut across his land as a license. Then sold the premises to the tenant which took effect as a legal easement.

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

Bailey v Stephens

A

“You cannot have a right of way over land in Kent due to an estate in Northumberland”

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

Re Ellenborough Park

A

Houses being built nearby to a park was held not to be fatal to the creation of an easement

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

Chaffe v Kingsley

A

Right of way where the land is not clearly defined cannot be an easement

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

William Aldred’s case

A

Cannot have an easement for a view

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

Browne v Flower

A

Cannot have an easement to privacy

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

Dyce v Hay 1852

A

“The category of servitudes and easements must alter and expand with the changes that take place in the circumstances of mankind.” Lord St Leondards

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

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd

A

Cannot claim an easement to a TV reception. Lord Hoffman “no such easement can arise. Better way is a restrictive covenant as this restricts an owners freedom.

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

Phipps v Pears

A

Courts rejection of negative easements. Lord Denning held protection of a wall from the weather was too restrictive. Law Commission has questioned this.

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

No right to wander (2 cases)

A

Borman v Griffith

International Tea Stores v Hobbs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Right to use facilities

Chaffe v Kingsley

A

Must be within the general nature of rights constituting easements

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Rights of support but not shelter (2 cases)

A

Dalton v Angus & Co

Phipps v Pears

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Rights to light, air, water, drainage and other services through DEFINED APERTURES

A

Wong v Beaumont Property Trust Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Levet v Gas Light & Coke Co

A

Has to be through defined aperture such as windows, french doors, etc

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Colls v Home & Colonial Stored Ltd

A

Entitled to the amount sufficient for comfortable use and enjoyment according to the ordinary notions of mankind, does not alter for professions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Earl Putnam v MacDonald

A

No claim to light in a garden through not being through aperture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Allen v Greenwood

A

The standard varies on the type of building at the time it was acquired

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Carr-Saunders v Dick McNeil

A

Correct question is how much light is left?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Regis Property Co Ltd v Redman

A

A servient landowner cannot generally be under any obligation to maintain his land for the benefit of the dominant tenement but cannot act in a way to deliberately defeat the easement.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Bond v Nottingham Corporation

A

Owner of a servant tenement is not entitled to remove support without providing an equivalent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Green v Ascho Horticultural Ltd

A

As he always moved his van when asked to do so this was not an easement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Trustees Ltd v Papakyriacou

A

As restrictions were not put in the original agreement they could not later apply

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Grigsby v Melville

A

As a cellar could only be used by the dominant tenement this was held to be exclusive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Miller v Emcer Products

A

Rights to use a toilet was capable of being an easement despite excluding others

32
Q

Wright v Macadam

A

Coal shed did not amount to exclusive possession as the new owner had a legal easement to use the store

33
Q

Copeland v Greenhalf

A

EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION TEST - cannot have an easement or a right to park

34
Q

London & Blenheim Estates Ltd

A

PROPORTION TEST distinguished Copeland, proportion of use left for the owner

35
Q

Batchelor v Marlow

A

REASONABLE USE TEST not proportion but whether there was excessive use, parking space could therefore not be an easement

36
Q

Montcrieff v Jamieson

A

CONTROL AND POSSESSION TEST

37
Q

Waterman v Boyle

A

Wanted more than two car parking spaces for visitors, two was held to be reasonable

38
Q

Wood v Leadbitter

A

Equitable easement must have a valid written contract (s2 LP(MP) A 1989) if not then a personal license

39
Q

Necessity for Grants

A

Seller is under a duty to give full effect to the purchaser’s wishes, has to grant easements necessary for the enjoyment of the land. Only granted if completely unusable.

40
Q

Union Lighterage Co v London Graving Dock Co

A

Easement of necessity means property cannot be used at all

41
Q

Pryce v McGuinness

A

Highly advantageous does not mean the same as necessity

42
Q

MRA Engineering v Trimester Co

A

Despite only having access by foot, not enough for necessity

43
Q

Pwllbach Colliery Co v Woodman

A

Necessary for the enjoyment of a right already granted and necessary to give effect to the common intention as to the purposes the land was granted provided the subject is used in a definite manner

44
Q

Stafford v Lee

A

Easements for future use may be allowed if they were known to the servient owner at the time of the transfer

45
Q

Donovan v Rana

A

Easement was necessary for the intended purpose of the dwelling

46
Q

Peckham v Ellison

A

Common intention right of way

47
Q

Swansborough v Coventry

A

Should a landowner split his plot into two and sell both parts, each transferee will acquire an easement and quasi-easement exercised prior to the transfer for the benefit of the land they now own

48
Q

Wheeldon v Burrows

A

Cannot retain an easement of light once land was sold. Four criteria!
1. Continuous and apparent
2. Necessary for reasonable enjoyment of property
3. Used by the owner for the entirety for the benefit of the part granted
4?

49
Q

Borman v Griffiths

A

Grant of an easement over a plainly visible road, fence without a gate showed no common intention for access to be granted

50
Q

Ward v Kirkland

A

Right to go onto retained land to repair a wall was not implied as it was not continuous or apparent

51
Q

Wheeler v JJ Saunders Ltd

A

Secondary access way not deemed necessary due to already existing access

52
Q

Millman v Ellis

A

The lane and layby were continuous and apparent

53
Q

Kent v Kavanagh

A

In use at the time the land is sold by the person selling the grant. Does not apply to implied reservations but implied grants.

54
Q

An equitable easement may arise where there is…

A

A contract to convey part of the land s2 LP(MP) A 1989

55
Q

REFORM for Quasi-Easements

A

Single statutory test “necessary for reasonable use”

56
Q

Section 62 LPA 1925

A

Transfer any benefit the land had when sold without the need to put it in a transfer document. Converts equitable easements and licenses into legal, and quasi-easements into legal.

57
Q

Graham v Philcox

A

s62 may operate to convert right previously in actual use into an easement even though that right was used by the owner of a lesser estate than conveyed

58
Q

Wright v Macadam

A

Under an original lease a tenant had a license to use a coal store, a new lease was granted when this one ended (under 62) and tenant was held to have a legal easement

59
Q

International Tea Stores v Hobbs

A

Tenant of a house had a license to cross the yard of the landlords neighbouring property. When the tenant bought the freehold, license was converted to a legal easement

60
Q

Sovnots Investments Ltd v SOS for the environment

A

Diversity of occupation is necessary

61
Q

Payne v Inwood

A

Followed Sovnots Investments

62
Q

Broomfield v Williams

A

Diversity is not necessary for a right to light

63
Q

P & S Platt Ltd v Crouch

A

Prior diversity is not necessary if continuous and apparent

64
Q

Wood v Waddington

A

No reason why s62 cannot operate where there is no diversity of occupation as long as the right was previously enjoyed with C’s land

65
Q

Alford v Hannaford

A

Diversity is not necessary if continuous and apparent, s62 may operate in favour of the purchaser without showing reasonable enjoyment

66
Q

Mills v Silver

A

Acquisition of an easement by prescription requires a lawful history of continuous user in a fee simple as of right in which the servant owner has with the requisite degree of knowledge, acquiesced.

67
Q

Common law prescription

A

if you have used the right for 20 years it is presumed you have used it since “time immemorial” 6th July 1189, can be rebutted

68
Q

Prescription by Lost Modern Grant

A

Pretends you were expressly granted the easement in modern times but it has been lost. Must have been exercised for 20 years!

69
Q

Prescription by Statute (Prescription Act 1832)

A

s2- easements other than rights to light, must be without consent or interruption. If 20 years will not be defeated by proof it began after 1189, if 40 cannot be defeated.
s4 the 20 years must be “next before some suit or action” any interruption will be ignored so long as it is less than one year
s3 easements of light, 20 years without interruption deemed absolute

70
Q

Passing of the burden, which sections apply?

A

s28 and s29

71
Q

Which easements are overriding? Schedule 3(3) LRA 2002

A
  1. Express legal easements before 13th October 2003
  2. All legal easements arising by implication, statute or prescription before or after 13th October.
  3. Express on or after 13th October are registrable under s27, if not then equitable
72
Q

In order for an easement to be overriding what must it be?

A

Within the actual knowledge of the dispose of the servant land, obvious upon a reasonably careful inspection or used by the owner of the dominant land in the past year

73
Q

How can they be extinguished?

A

Express release or variation, implied release (abandonment) or variation, unification, obsolescence

74
Q

Unification

A

If a title of possession is unified, there is no serving tenement so the easement is extinguished. If there are 2 pieces of land, one with a benefit and one with a burden the easement is extinguished.

75
Q

Law Commission Unification

A

Should be able to subsist even if owned by the same

76
Q

Obsolescence

A

The easement is no longer necessary

77
Q

Law Commission Obsolescence

A

Due to the complex issues around implied release, should be lost if not used for 20 years. Anti-prescription act

Land Law (6 decks)

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