Things to remember

Question 1

Ellenbourough Park test:

Answer 1

1) dominant and servent tenement
2) Must accommodate the dominant tenement
3) Diversity of ownership
4) must lie in grant

Question 2

Dominant and servient tenement

Answer 2

Two identifiable 1) benefits (Dominate) 2) servient (burdened) (Hawkins v Rutter)

Question 3

Must accomodate the Dom tenement

Answer 3

Must benefit (value) regardless of owner, if there is a business it must value the property not the business (Hill v Tupper) there must be sufficient proximity (bailey v Stephens)

Question 4

Diversity of ownership

Answer 4

Roe v SIddens tenant and land lord will do

Question 5

Lie in grant

Answer 5

1) Grantor and grantee have seperate legal personalities
2) subject matter must be sufficiently clear the nature (Scenic views too vague (Aldreds case)) Extent
3) must be judicially recognisable: Parking (London and Blenheim estate) Storage Wright v Macadam

Question 6

Additional factors besides ellenborough to conclude them in being easements

Answer 6

Must not incur expense - Carter v Cole
Must be excersisable right (Green v Ashco)
Must not amount to exclusive possession (Jackson v Malnavey) 1 car in 4 is not (Hair v Gillman)

Question 7

Types of aquisition in descending order of an easement

Answer 7

Express 
Implied:
Necessity
Common intention
Wheeldon v Burrows
s62

Question 8

Express Acquisition

Answer 8

Express Grant or reservation: Grant-> Expressly grants over the land, Reservation -> reserves right over a land being sold

Question 9

Necessity

Answer 9

must be essential, convenience is not sufficient (Manjang)

Question 10

Common intention

Answer 10

Sold for a specific purpose

1) Intention to create easement (Wong)
2) Purpose must be sufficiently definite (woodsman)
3) No other explanation for granting easement (Pekham)

Question 11

Wheeldon v Burrows

Answer 11

Turns quasi easments into easements Requirements:

1) Must be continious and apparent (Costagliola v English)
2) Necessary for the enjoyment of the property (wheeldon v Burrows)
3) in use at the date of the transfer (Kent v Kavanagh)

Question 12

s62

Answer 12

Extends wheeldon and burrows toa ll relevant rights (Wright v Macadan) Requirements:

1) conveyans of transfer of ownership
2) Diversity of ownership (Wright v Macadan)

Question 13

Legal Easement

Answer 13

Created by Deed, Duration of a freehold ore leasehold ter registered if expressly granted (S27 2 d LRA)

Question 14

Equitable easement

Answer 14

S 2 LPMPA

Question 15

Enforcibility

Answer 15

Benefit passed under s62 LPA
Burden: Registered legal express registration required Implied overriding interest sch 3 s 3 LRA
Equitable: 3 2 LRA
Unregistered: 
Legal automaticall binding
Equitable class d iii s 198 LPA

Question 16

Remedies

Answer 16

injunction, damages and self help

Question 17

4 unities

Answer 17

AG Securities v Vaughn PITT
Unity in Possession
Unity in interest
unity in time 
unity in title

Question 18

TIC v JT

Answer 18

Distribution of input means a TIC (Bull v Bull)

Express statement over rules (Pink v Lawrence)

Question 19

Severance

Answer 19

Process of separating the shares of a JT to create a TIC so right of survivorship no longer applies (Harris v Goddard)
Requirements:
1. Must sever while alive, not after death Re Caines,
2. Only applies to beneficial interest not legal title
Effects: 1) Ownership status changes, Other JT’s remain, if only two JT’s turn into two TIC
2) Share of property, co-owners receive equal shares, regardless of size of original , 3) right of survivorhip not under wil Goodman v Gallant

Question 20

Methods of severence

Answer 20

There are different methods of severance, they can happen in writing, through total alienation, through mutual conduct or through mutual agreement. (Williams v Hensman)

Question 21

Severance through writing

Answer 21

ADRESSED no formalities how,
CONTENT: Intention to server, Unequivocal, immediate and irrevocable -> may be implied (Re Drapers)
SERVICE (196 LPA 1925)All Jt’s Served either Handing over or last known (s196 (3) LPA Ordinary post-> effective when arrives (Kinch v Bullard)- OR -> WHEN IT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED

Question 22

Alienation for severance

Answer 22

Total alienation -> Selling of shares (53 1 c) impossible to regain
Partial -> Mortgaging -> TIC till paid back (Brown v Raindale)
Involuntary: homicide, litigation, Bankruptcy Re Gorman

Question 23

Mutual conduct and mutual agreement cases:

Answer 23

Gore &Snell v Carpenter -> mutual agreement is necessarry conditions during divorce
Davies v Smith mutual agreement example between their solicitors as they were divorcing
Burges v Rawnsley -> An agreement to sever, to effect severance, must be irrevocable, and must be accompanied by mutual intent under the Williams v Hensman (1861) catalogue, when interpreting the Law of Property Act 1925, s 36(2)
Hunter v Babbage -> agreed split of 50/50

Question 24

Examples of Exceptional circumstances

Answer 24

Re Mott -> old lady sick

Re Ravel -> Scizophrenic patient

Question 25

Actual occupation: S32 -> Sch 3 s2

Answer 25

Chokar v Chokar -> still actual occupation pregnant
Stockholm finance -> saudi princess wasn’t there for a year
Abbey national v Cann -> caretaker of the property actual occupation

Question 26

Equity’s darling

Answer 26

Bona fide purchaser for value of a legal estate without notice
Bonafide (Good faith)
Purchaser (Aquirting an interest in land)
Value (of money’s worth)
Legal estate
WIthout notice (without any of the notices)

Question 27

Doctrine of notice

Answer 27

only applicable to Proprietary estoppel (Ives investment v high) and BIUT found in s199

Question 28

Proprietary estoppel definition

Answer 28

Informal method by which properietary rights can arise , it can be used as a cause of action.
Must look at: assurance, reliance on assurance, detriment due to reliance and unconscionability

Question 29

Elements of proprietary estoppel

Answer 29

Assurance: Expectation that they have rights to the D’s land, express or implied (Thorner v Major)
Reliance:
Detriment: ie financial loss, Working for a landowner without payment (Wayling v Jones)
Unconscionability-> unifyingand conforming (Yeoman v Cobbe)