neighbour law Flashcards
corrie v craig
boundary walls.
wall built wholly on one side of the boundary.
erecting ss new wall or fence must pay for it youself snd erect it solely on your ground unless consent of your neighbour obtained but on the former dykey act 1661 and 1669 act
ownership of a boundary wall
this is governed by accession but with type 2 walls there is common interest in the part that you do not own
maintenance
in type 2 walls there is a common interest obl of support
if not complied with the other owner can carry out the work and recover cost
common interest is a default rule which may be replaced or supplemented by real burdens
NEWTON V GODFREY
TAKEN ACTION TO ENSURE SUPPORT
if not complied with the other owner can carry out the work and recover cost
THOM V HETHERINGTON
ALTERATIONS IN TYPE 2 WALLS ALTERATIONS MUST NOT ENDAGER SUPPORT
CHERRY TREE CASE. X roots spread into Y. Y poisoned X tree. X chucked coal at Y dog. Y built fence attached to wall to stop X.
Held a matter of degree impaired the strength did not impair the strength
L. jauncy- such impairment or interference must be mearesurable and not just merely negligible
X applied to slc to get law changed they stated it should not be chnaged
duke of Buccleuch v mag of ed
ENCROACHMENT pillers 30n years later raised an action= too late
defence to encroachment =
consent can be implied through aquisence OR can be express
if implied then the owner of the land is personally barred from bringing encroachi=ment action
pollock v drogo development
ENCROACHMENT pipes going onto land
Anderson v brattisani
ENCROACHMENT by use of another persons building for a signpost or other object extened flue to attach to wall, as well as taks.
REM- if encroachment occurred the court will only not exercise its discresion if the removal of the encroachment is disproportionate loss, unreasonable or impossible.
BUT the encroacher can be liable for damages (self help)
halkerson v wedderbun
ENCROACHMENT by spreading roots or overhanging branches
(deposit rubbish is also one)_
leonard v Lindsay & benzie
ENCROACHMENT doesn’t have to be a trival loss just some form of loss and land materially effected to get a delictual award.
a propriotor is not entitled to encroach apon his neigbours property even to the extent of driving a nail into it
brown vbaty
ENCROACHMENT l over a mutual boundry
strath clyde v persimmon homes
ENCROACHMENT but problem whether consent transmits against succesors
new housing development to build rd got permission from council BUT council. held that they no construction consent did not infer consent consent as owner public and private law distinct builder NOT INTIMATED TO OWNER
remedies for encroachment
ENCROACHMENT interdict
removal of encroachment (discresction to refuse where slight or unobjectionable or reasonable use that they depend on)
mclellan v j&d pierce
ENCROACHMENT encroaching a few metres onto land. sol sent letter to ask them to stop. kept building. court order to remove HELD NEIGBOUR did not act REASONABLY
IN ANDERSON the difference was the removal of the encroachment would have meant relocation
strath clyde regional council v persimmon homes
ENCROACHMENT damages through the seriousness of the encroachment they can quantify the damages
self help methods for encroachment
ENCROACHMENT
encroachment acceded- the thing entirely owned by person encroached apon
overhanging building- if straddles may be removed up to boundry cannot undermine support of building
overhanging branches- cut them down and without damaging neighbours property place them back
movable property
William tracey v tsp
ENCROACHMENT defences stat create powers to install tghings on the land that would ordinarly amount to encroachment
Dunlop v robertson
nuisance- aemulatio vinci (deliberately annoying neighbour)
high hedges wanted privacy defence succeeded
high hedges act 2013
more v boyle
nuisance- aemulatio vinci (deliberately annoying neighbour)
closed of a water pip no clear right of servitude closed off spitefully held to be a deliberate vinci
