Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Exam cards - Land Law > Easements > Flashcards

Easements Flashcards

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

An easement can be either legal or equitable

A
  • Legal S1(2)(a)LPA 1925

- Equitable S3 LPA 1925

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

Re: Ellenborough Park - Test for capability of easements

A
  1. Must be dominant and servient tenement
  2. Easement must accommodate the dominant tenement
  3. No common ownership and occupation of dominant and servient tenements
  4. The right claimed must lie in grant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Dominant and servient tenement

A
  • There must be benefitted and burdened land - London & Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke
  • Hawkins v Rutter - Right to park barge benefited no land (not easement)
  • Alfred Becket v Lyons - Right to collect coal from shore benefitted no land (no easement)
  • Banstead Golf Club - Easement cannot exist in gross, there must be dominant and servient land
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Easement must accommodate the dominant tenement

A 
Benefit land rather than the person
Cases;
- P & A Swift
- Hill v Tupper
- Moody v Steggles
- Bailey v Stephens
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

P + A Swift

A

Does the easement touch and concern the land;

  • Value
  • Quality
  • Nature
  • Mode of use
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Hill v Tupper

A
  • Right to launch pleasure boats into canal rejected as an easement as would not benefit any owner of the land
  • The easement only benefited him not the land, as the land was not inextricably and intrinsically linked to the use for running a pleasure boat business (land would not always be used for that business so was a personal right)
  • Therefore court held that the right could not exist as an easement
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Moody v Steggles

A
  • An easement to hang a sign on a neighbour’s house was for the benefit of the land as the land had been used as a pub for 40 years.
  • Therefore land judged specific to use as a pub, therefore the easement benefited the land not just the individual
  • Therefore the right was for the benefit of the land, which was inextricably linked to the use of the land as a pub.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Bailey v Stephens

A

o Must be proximity to show benefit is to land, not purely personal
o LJ Blythe - Land in Kent, cannot bind land in Northumberland

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

No common ownership of dominant and servient tenements

A

Roe v Siddons - If a right exists over your own land, then it is known as a quasi-easement, which is capable of becoming an easement upon division of land

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

Right must lie in grant - 3 rules

A
  • Capable grantor
  • Sufficiently definite
  • Judicially recognised right
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Bland v Mosely

A
  • Burdened owner must know how to comply with the right

- Right to view was too imprecise to 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

Easement to enjoy scenic view too imprecise

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

Right must be judicially recognised. List some judicially recognised rights;

A
  • Right of way – Bowman v Griffith
  • Right of storage – Wight v Macadam
  • Right to light – Colls v Home & Colonial Stores
  • Right to water – Race v Ward
  • Right to air – Wong v Beaumont
  • Right to support (structural) – Dalton v Angus
  • Right to drainage (and other utilities gas, electricity) – Atwood v Bovis
  • Right to pollute a river – Scott-Whitehead v National Coal Board
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What are the only 2 permitted negative easements? (closed list)

A
  • Right to light

- Right to support

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

Phipps v Pears

A

Right to protection from weather is negative so not capable of being easement as not on closed list

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

Hunter v Canary Wharf

A

Right to TV signal denied as negative and closed list

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

Additional 3 factors to be capable of being easement

A
  • Cannot be at owners expense
  • Interest must be exercisable as of right
  • Right must not ammount to exclusive possession
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Regis Property v Redman

A

Right to hot water was at owvers expense so could not be easement

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

Rance v ELvin

A

Right to the passage of water through pipes was judged not to be at the owners expense as though the water incurred a cost this could be remedied by a quasi easement for the paying of the water bill cost. Therefore did not incur expenditure at burdened land’s expense

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

Jones v Pritchard

A

No obligation to effect repairs, but there is an obligation to allow the tenant of the dominant land to enter the servient land to effect repairs

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

Green v Ashco

A

Permission to use driveway required. Therefore not exercisable as of right

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

Right cannot ammount to exclusive possession case progression

A
  • Batchelor v Marlow
  • Girgsby v Melville
  • Jackson v Mulvaney
  • Moncrieff v Jamieson
  • Virdi v Chana
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Batchelor v Marlow

A
  • Established test for exclusive possession
  • Does the easement deprive the land owner of the reasonable use of the land?
  • In this case it did as the right to park 6 cars deprived the owner of the land of the reasonable use
24
Q

Jackson v Mulvaney

A

A right to use a garden was claimed as an easement. Benefitor then gravelled over part of the garden to use as a driveway. Court allowed benefitor to gravel over land as did not prevent the right to use the whole of the garden for recreation and amenity. However did award damages for destroying flowers

25
Q

Grigsby v Melville

A

Original case of exclusive possession. Used cellar for storage, to the exclusion of the owner through an easement. Owner deprived of reasonable use, so could not be easement.

26
Q

Moncrieff v Jamieson

A

• Changed test for exclusive possession;
o Does the land owner have possession and control of the land?
• Scottish case however reviewed by HOL so highly persuasive

27
Q

Virdi v Chana

A

• Courts still bound by Batchelor, however if the issue as to exclusive possession is unclear Moncrieff can be applied

28
Q

Hair v Gillman

A

Right to park car in any one of 4 spaces. This is ok as is not tantamount to exclusive possession

29
Q

Express acquisition of legal easement

A
  • By deed – S52 LPA 1925 (valid requirements of a deed S1(2) LP(MP)A 1989
  • For freehold or leasehold term S.1(2)(a) LPA 1925 FIXED TERM
  • Registration –s.27(2)(d)LRA 2002 – On property register for dominant land, on charges register for servient land – Not legal till registered
30
Q

Cordell v Second Clanfield

A

If an easement is acquired by reservation it will be constructed narrowly

31
Q

Define grant and reservation

A
  • Grant - Grant benefit over your land

- Reservation - Reserve yourself a right over someone else’s land

32
Q

5 methods of implied acquisition

A
  • Implied by necessity
  • Implied by common intention
  • Implied by the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows (1879)
  • Implied grant under s62 LPA 1925
  • Implied by prescription
33
Q

Implied by necessityq

A
  • Manjang v Drammeh - Very high standard for necessity. No easement from necessity as could access land by boat
  • Adelaon v Merton Council - Necessity will not imply an easement just because it is highly advantageous
34
Q

Easement implied from common intention

A

Wong v Beaumont - Common intention to be used as Chinese restaurant, and a number of covenants. Easement granted as only way to comply with common intention and lease.

35
Q

Wheeldon v BUrrows (CART)

A
  • Right is continuous and apparent
  • Right is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of land
  • Right in use at time of transfer
36
Q

Continuous and apparent

A

Borman v Griffith - Apparent means discoverable or detectable upon careful inspection
Pyer v Carter - Worn pathway
Constagliola v English - Continuous is judged according to common sense. Some degree of regularity

37
Q

Necessary for reasonable enjoyment of the land

A

Borman v Griffith - High standard though not as high as necessity
Wheeler v JJ Saunders - Contributes to the enjoyment of the property for the purpose for which it was transferred. Already had one right of way, so second right of way was not necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of that land

38
Q

Used at time of grant

A

Kent v Kavanagh - Not exact application. Must be owner not tenant of owner

39
Q

Does the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows apply to grants or reservations?

A

ONLY grants

40
Q

Does the rule in W v B apply to both deeds and contracts?

A

YES

41
Q

Does the right have to be continuous and apparent, and also necessary for reasonable enjoyment?

A

o Ward v Kirkland (1967) – They are alternatives

o Milman v Ellis (1995) – Predominant view is that both requirements need to be satisfied

42
Q

Easement granted under S62 LPA 1925

A
  • Converts licence into an easement
43
Q

Wright v Macdam

A

Licence to store coal in shed converted into easement upon grant of new lease

44
Q

International Tea Stores v Hobbs

A

Gave tenant permission to use the drive as a right of access. Tenant then bought the freehold, converting the right under the lease to an easement under the freehold using s62 LPA 1925

45
Q

Payne v Inwood

A

S62 requirse pripir diversity of ownership to operate

46
Q

P + S Platt v Crouch

A
  • S62 can operate if no prior diversity provided the right is continuous and apparent
47
Q

Limitations on S62

A
  • Only applies to grants

- Only applies to deeds NOT contracts

48
Q

Alford v Hannaford

A

Can acquire without prior diversity. Affirmed P + S Platt

49
Q

Campbell v Banks

A

Questioned whether can operate without prior diversity. Questioned whether P + S Platt is good law.

50
Q

Prescription

A
  • No force
  • No secrecy
    • Liverpool Corp v Coghill
  • No permission
  • Continuous use - Mills v SIlver
51
Q

Extinguishment of easement

A

Express - Deed
Implied - Disuse - Swan v Sinclair
Common ownership - Wall v Collins

52
Q

Enforceability of legal easement expressly acquired in registered land

A
  • S27(2)(d) LRA 2002 – registration will bind anyone who acquires the property
  • If not registered the easement is only equitable
  • The registrar must also enter a notice on the charges register of the servient tenement (S38 LRA 2002)
53
Q

Enforceability of legal easements acquired by implied acquisition in registered land

A
  • An equitable easement is an ‘overriding interest’ Sch 3 Para 3 LRA 2002, so will therefore bind any subsequent owner provided;
    o The easement is in the actual knowledge of the person to whom the disposition is made OR
    o The easement is obvious upon reasonably close inspection of the land over which the easement is exercisable OR
    o It has been exercised within a year before the date of purchase
54
Q

Enforceability of legal easements in unregistered land (both express and implied)

A

• Rights exist in rem and bind the world

55
Q

Enforceability of equitable easement in registered land

A

• S32 LRA 2002 – Notice on charges register
o Notice will either be agreed – S34 LRA 2002
o Nor notice will be unilateral – S35 LRA 2002
o Or will be a unilateral notice – S35 LRA 2002
• S29 LRA 2002 – If notice not registered then will not be binding on a PFV

56
Q

Enforceability of equitable easement in unregistered land

A
  • s2(5) LCA 1972 If registered as a class D (iii) charge on the central land register then binding on everyone who acquires the servient tenement (S198 LPA 1925)
  • If not registered then a PFV takes free. Non-PFV still bound S4(6) LCA 1972

Exam cards - Land Law (4 decks)

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