Neighbours and Easements

Question 1

Re Ellenborough Park

Answer 1

Houses were built around private park, use of park was held to be an easement, there are certain rules about what can be an easement that this case fit. Main test for accommodation - has value of land increased?

Question 2

Hill v Tupper

Answer 2

Right to put boats on canal doesn’t benefit land, can’t be easement

Question 3

Moody v Steggles

Answer 3

Right to display sign for pub in main street was an easement, accommodated the pub, pub couldn’t be seperated from building it operated in.

Question 4

Rance v Elvin

Answer 4

Right to water would require neighbour to pay for water.

Question 5

Crow v Wood

Answer 5

Exception to expenditure rule - fencing against cattle.

Question 6

Copeland v Greenhalf

Answer 6

If right claimed by easement would effectively deprive the owner of any reasonable use of the area of land, then that right is not capable of being an easement.

Question 7

Moncrieff v Jamieson (Scotland)

Answer 7

Right to park was servitude even though it excluded the true owner from parking there.

Question 8

Kettel v Bloomfold

Answer 8

Moncrieff v Jamieson would apply in English law.

Question 9

Harris v Flower

Answer 9

Whichever land is benefitted must be established at the moment the easement is created.

Question 10

National Trust v White

Answer 10

NT wished to buy land for car park, would break rule on extension of dominant tenement, but court held the right was ancillary to the use of the hill fort.

Question 11

University of East London

Answer 11

Can have easement over own land if two tenements are owned in different capacities.

Question 12

Nickerson v Barraclough

Answer 12

Easements by necessity based on presumed intention of the parties, would be possible to expressly exclude all access to the land.

Question 13

Wong v Beaumont

Answer 13

Land was bought to be used as restaurant, it was underground, intended easement to install ventilation or the basement could not be used as a restaurant.

Question 14

Tea Store v Hobbs

Answer 14

Provision under s62 LPA was read literally, licences were turned into easements on the conveyance of property

Question 15

Sovmounts Investments v Secretary of State for the Environment

Answer 15

Concerned tower block deliberately left empty, council wanted to compulsory purchase flats but would need right of way through remaining tower block. Tried to use s62 but failed because the flats were empty and so the rights associated with them had never been enjoyed.

Question 16

Wood v Waddington

Answer 16

Where the right is continuous and apparent, and there is a conveyance, the right can pass under s62 LPA.

Question 17

Wheeldon v Burrows

Answer 17

Use of easement should be reasonable necessary for the enjoyment of the land. (1) right should be capable of existing as an easement, (2) it should be continuous and apparent, (3) it should be reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the land, (4) it should have been used at the time of division.

Question 18

Borman v Griffith

Answer 18

Property was split between main house and smaller house, owner of smaller house wanted to use main driveway, use of the right was reasonably necessary so became formal easement.

Question 19

Bakewood Management v Brandwood

Answer 19

Common land was used to access house for many years, was illegal to drive over it, held that if the owner of the common had permitted the use under an easement it would not be criminal. You can prescribe for easements which make the use of land non criminal.

Question 20

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 20

Claim in nuisance was made for interference with TV reception, not actionable as children made claim, had no proprietary interest.

Question 21

Phipps v Pears

Answer 21

Right to protect your building from weather not an easement.

Question 22

Colls v Home and Colonial Stores

Answer 22

Can’t object to light being diminished, only if it becomes unreasonable to use it for normal purposes.

Question 23

Allen v Greenwood

Answer 23

High levels of light may be prescribed for greenhourse.

Question 24

Tulk v Moxay

Answer 24

Court recognised new property right, restrictive covenant in equity. Land in Leicester Square was sold with restrictive covenant not to build on land.

Question 25

LCC v Allen

Answer 25

Builder covenanted with LCC not to build on proposed road. LCC owned no nearby land. Site conveyed to Mrs A, with notice, who built. LCC could not sue Mrs A.

Question 26

Marten v Flight Refuelling

Answer 26

Whole estate benefitted from covenant affected small part of the estate, covenant touched and concerned the entire estate.

Question 27

Federated Homes v Mill Lodge

Answer 27

FH owned two tenements with different titles. Covenant for first plot was expressly annexed each time, enforceable. Held that with second plot, because it was a post-1925 covenant, annextion was read into the covenant and it was enforceable without assignment.

Question 28

Elliston v Reacher

Answer 28

Scheme of developments can operate where new housing estates are built. Conditions; (1) common vendor, (2) intention to impose common restrictions, (3) intention to benefit other lots, and (4) purchasers buy on the basis of common restrictions.

Question 29

Rhone v Stevens

Answer 29

Large house had cottage attached, had obligation to repair roof for whole property. Held the positive obligation could only be enforced against the original party, not the current landowner.

Question 30

Halsall v Brizell

Answer 30

Each householder had to contribute to cost of draincleaning, held to have the benefit of drains must submit to burden of cleaning them.

Question 31

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

Answer 31

Test for registering land as village green, use must be: (1) open in the sense that they used it as one would expect those who had the right to do so would have used it, (2) did not take place in secret, and (3) was not be reason of the owner’s permission.

Question 32

Wilkinson v Kerdene

Answer 32

Owner of communal parts of holiday village could enforce positive covenants against bungalow owners. Maintenance charges were intended to allow bungalow owners to use the facilities and common parts and they continued to exercise their right to do so. Burden was relevant to benefit under Rhone v Stevens.