Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Land (Henriette) > Easements > Flashcards

Easements Flashcards

1
Q

“Easement”

A

proprietary right, capable of binding a new owner - very specific single purpose rights

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

s. 1(2)(a) LPA 1925

A

easement = proprietary right: capable of being legal if it is for a fixed amount of time or effectively forever and created by deed

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

s. 3 LPA 1925

A

An easement that is not legal can still be a proprietary right, but will operate as an equitable easement

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

Legal vs. equitable easements

A

Ability to bind a 3rd party

LE: if it appears on the register or under certain circumstances as an overriding interest, it will be capable of binding a 3rd party

EE: must be entered on the register as a notice to bind a 3rd party and especially since LRA 2002 - if not will not operate as an overriding interest

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

Schedules 1 and 3, para. 3 (LRA 2002)

A

Refers specifically to IMPLIED LEGAL easements as being capable of overriding

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

s. 27 LRA 2002 - Why are only IMPLIED LEGAL easements capable of overriding?

A

Express easements created by deed must be registered or they remain equitable - equitable easements are not binding unless they appear on the register

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

Re Ellenborough Park: Criteria for an easement

A
  1. There must be a dominant and servient tenement
  2. The easement must “accommodate” the dominant tenement (Lord Evershed)
  3. The two plots must be owned or occupied by different people
  4. Easement must “lie in grant” (i.e. right must be capable of “forming the subject matter of the grant” )
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Ackroyd v Smith

A

An easement cannot exist “in gross” –> it cannot exist without an estate in land to which the easement is connected

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

Banstead Downs Golf Club v Customs and Exercise

A

There was no easement for a member of the gold club to play golf on the club’s course, there was no estate to which an easement could have been connected –>purely personal

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

London and Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke Retail Parks

A

The dominant and servient tenements must be identifiable at the time of the grant - here, there was no dominant land at the time the easement was granted –> no easement

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

London and Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke Retail Parks

A

The dominant and servient tenements must be identifiable at the time of the grant - here, there was no dominant land at the time the easement was granted –> no easement

HOWEVER: stated that a non-specific parking space was capable of being an easement

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

Bailey v Stephens

A

One property in Northumberland and one in Kent was not sufficiently close –> no easement

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

Hill v Tupper

A

Purely personal benefit to the owner of a pleasure boat business to run canal boats done a river (Pollock CB: simply a licence!)

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

Hill v Tupper

A

Purely personal benefit to the owner of a pleasure boat business to run canal boats down a river (Pollock CB: simply a licence!)

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

Roe v Siddons

A

The dominant and servient plot must be owned or occupied by different people

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

Borman v Griffith

A

Different ownership can mean that both plots can be owned freehold by one person, provided that one of the plots has a tenant who owns the leasehold estate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q
  1. Re Ellenborough criteria: right alleged must be “capable of forming the subject matter of the grant”
A

Lord Evershed’s “sub-rules”:

i. capable grantor and grantee
ii. sufficiently certain
iii. no positive expenditure
iv. no exclusive use by the dominant land

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

“capable of firming the subject matter of the grant”

i. capable grantor and grantee

A

Two persons with legal titles (e.g. if one of them has a licence, the right is not capable of being an easement)

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

“capable of firming the subject matter of the grant”

ii. sufficiently certain

A

traditionally, an easement needed to be written on a deed and be clear in term –> common law developed with this in mind

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

Phipps v Pears

A

“Protection against the weather” was too vague

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

Rees v Skerrett

A

There can be an easement of “support” from an adjacent property (where demolition of adjoining wall would cause destruction)

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

Webb v Bird

A

There is no easement of air per se, but there can be an easement of air through a defined channel

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

Colls v Home and Colonial Stores

A

There is no easement of light per se, but there can be an easement of of light through a specific window

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

Hunter v Canary Wharf

A

No easement of television signals (Hunter’s enjoyment of her tele was affected by the Canary Wharf tower building)

Dixon: might have been decided differently if TV signals were entering through a defined fibre-optic cable rather than through the traditional aerial

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

Browne v Flower

A

Right to privacy is not capable of being an easement

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

Lawrence v Fen Tigers

A

No easement of either “noise” or “silence”

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

Dyce v Lady James Hay

A

Suggested that easements must alter and expand with the changes of mankind, however the categories of easements have been relatively restricted through the development of the common law

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

Less restricted definitions of “easements”

A

Miller v Emcer: easement to use the lavatory

Wright v Macadam: easement of storage

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

“capable of firming the subject matter of the grant”

iii. no positive expenditure

A

There should be no positive expenditure on part of the servient tenement - policy reasons

30
Q

Regis v Redman

A

No positive expenditure on part of the servient land - unfair to grant easement and then pay for its upkeep as well

31
Q

Crow v Wood

A

Lord Denning found an easement for the maintenance of a boundary fence (even though expenditure by servant land) - trying to avoid a positive covenant which would not be binding on a 3rd party

32
Q

“capable of firming the subject matter of the grant”

iv. no exclusive use by the dominant land

A

Grigsby v Melville: dominant tenement owner had exclusive use over the cellar space - there cannot be an easement that leads to a general exclusion of the servient tenement owner

Wright v Macadam: there can be an easement of space such as that of a cellar for storage of coal

33
Q

Copeland v Greenhalf

A

The right to park here was extensive and almost exclusive –> no easement

34
Q

Newman v Jones || Batchelor v Marlow

A

The more exclusive the use of the servient tenement, the less likely it is that the right will be seen as an easement

35
Q

Reilly v Booth

A

Easement = use of another’s land NOT OWNERSHIP of that land

Street v Mountford: exclusive possession, for a term at a rent –> lease rather than easement

36
Q

s. 52(1) LPA 1925

A

If created by deed, an easement can be a legal easement, provided it is for a period equivalent to a freehold or leasehold estate (s. 1(2) LPA 1925)

37
Q

Ways to create an implied easement (deemed by the law as being legal rather than equitable)

A

1) Necessity
2) Common intention
3) Rule in Wheeldon v Burrows
4) s. 62 LPA 1925
5) Prescription

38
Q

equitable easements (created in writing and not by deed or implied): binding?

A

must appear as a notice in the charges section of the register to bind 3rd parties

39
Q

legal easements: binding?

A

under the provisions of s. 27 LRA 2002

40
Q

implied easements: binding?

A

might bind as overriding interests under paragraph 3 of Schedules 1 and 3 LRA 2002

41
Q

“implied reservation”

A

Re Dodd: courts have been more reluctant to allow such an easement to succeed - here, an implied reservation of a right across the conveyed land was unsuccessful because for convenience NOT necessity

42
Q

“Necessity”

A

without the benefit of the easement, the land would be useless or impossible to use

43
Q

Hillman v Rogers

A

Although it is technically possible to exclude easements by necessity through express words in a conveyance, the courts will analyse such a conveyance and allow an easement if the facts dictate that it is really necessary

44
Q

Re Dodd

A

Easier to claim the grant of an easement than a reservation

45
Q

Manjang v Drammeh

A

Despite Re Dodd, Lord Oliver stated it is possible to imply the reservation of an easement of necessity but if there is any other access route (even access by water like here - land locked) the claim fails as it did here

46
Q

Wong v Beaumont

A

Implied grant of an easement of necessity: easement of ventilation shaft over seller’s land as the land conveyed for the purpose of a restaurant would have been rendered useless without

ALSO argued successfully implied easement of common intention

47
Q

Pwllbach Colliery v Woodman

A

the law will readily imply the grant or reservation of an easement of common intention where the facts suggest that it was the intention of both parties that an easement should exist

48
Q

Stafford v Lee

A

Nourse LJ: common intention will be established where there is evidence that the parties are aware that the land is being used for a particular purpose and the easement would be necessary to give effect to that intention

49
Q

Common intention argument in Wong

A

Beaumont must have intended that there be an easement of ventilation as without it there would have been a breach of health and safety law

50
Q

Wheeldon and s. 62 methods of implied easements

A

these can only be used to claim a grant not a reservation of an implied easement

51
Q

Wheeldon v Burrows

A

On a grant of land, the grantee (e.g. the buyer) will acquire, by implication, all easement which:

1) are continuous and apparent
2) have been and are at the time of the grant used by the grantor for the benefit of the land

Thesiger LJ: “quasi-easements” as an owner cannot have a full easement over their own land

52
Q

Hansford v Jago

A

Application of the rule in Wheeldon: rough track used by the original owner over the part of the land now sold/leased - permanent and obvious and necessary for the enjoyment of the land by the new owner

53
Q

Ward v Kirk

A

defined “continuous and apparent” under the rule in Wheeldon - would be seen on inspection and is neither transitory nor intermittent

54
Q

The rule in Wheeldon - “necessary”

A

does not mean absolute necessity as in implied easements of necessity

55
Q

s. 62 LPA 1925

A

“A CONVEYANCE of land shall be deemed to include all liberties, privileges, EASEMENTS, rights and advantages”

–> applies only i relation to grants NOT reservations

56
Q

Hair v Gillman

A

Even a personal right such as a licence may become an easement through s. 62 if the conditions are satisfied

57
Q

Platt v Crouch

A

Diversity of occupation no longer needed where the use of an easement is “continuous and apparent” - Gibson LJ - it didn’t matter that prior to the sale of the hotel there was no diversity of occupation, the easement was continuous and apparent and reasonably necessary because it was a hotel

58
Q

Wood v Waddington

A

Alongside with Gibson LJ seems to align the rule in Wheeldon with the rule in s. 62, blurring the traditional distinction (prior diversity of ownership)
Academic support from Megarry and Wade

59
Q

Easements by prescription

A

(Often of lights): where there is long use of the right (20 years) - must be of right (without secrecy, force or permission), between freeholders and the use must have been continuous and uninterrupted
Prescription Act 1832

60
Q

s. 27 LRA 2002: compulsory registration

A

Any expressly granted easements are subject to compulsory registration, until this happens the easement remains equitable in nature

61
Q

Schedules 1 and 3, para. 3

A

Implied legal easement may be binding as an overriding interest if either

a) it is in the actual knowledge of the new owner
b) it is reasonably obvious on careful inspection
c) person claiming benefit can demonstrate they used the easement within the last year leading up to the sale

62
Q

Extinguish easement through express release

A

both parties agree to terminate easement

63
Q

Extinguish easement through implied release

A

needs abandonment

64
Q

Benn v Hardinge

A

Non-usement of easement for 175 years might not be enough to extinguish easement through implied release

65
Q

Huckvale v Aegean Hotels

A

Easement may be terminated if the land returns to sole ownership or the benefit is lost due to change of circumstances

66
Q

easements vs. covenants: termination

A

Easements cannot be terminated though an application to the Lands Tribunal under s. 84 LPA 1925 as can be the method with restrictive covenants - cannot ask for an easement to be misapplied by the courts

67
Q

Law Commission Report No 327 (2011)

A

Parliament should legislate to simplify and codify the law on easements (and covenants)

68
Q

“Getting rid of an easement”

A

excessive use for benefit of dominant land –> restored to nod-excessive use (Giles v Tarry)

Parliament can misapply easement (railway)

You can impose conditions and time limits but only at point of creation

69
Q

Regency Villas v Diamond Resorts

A

You can have an easement for leisure purposes if it is closely connected to land and well defined

70
Q

Equitable easements - overriding?

A

Only through actual occupation of the servient land by dominant owner - might be that equitable easements can never be overriding (what Lam Commission intended)!

Land (Henriette) (5 decks)

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