Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Easements
- Re Ellenborough Park
requirements
- Must be DT and ST
- Alfred Beckett v Lyons
- Right must accommodate the DT
- Right must benefit the land and not be a mere personal benefit
- Question is, is right attached to land or only to owner specifically?
- Proximity
- Bailey v Stephens
- Plots don't have to be physically adjacent but
the further the separation, the harder it is to
find an easement
- Re Ellenborough
- Nature of the rught
- Business use
- Contrast Moody v Steggles and Hill v Tupper
- Is right used in support of business? If so, capable of being an
easement. If used as basis for business, not capable of being an
easement.
- Must be capable of being subject matter of a grant
- Must be capable of being granted by deed.
- Must be sufficiently defined
- William Aldred's Case
- New easements can be found
- Dowty v Wolverhampton Corporation
- Except if;
- They are negative rights
- Except; right to light and right to building support
- Prescription Act 1832
- Browne v Flower
- They require positive action of the ST
- Moncrieff v Jamieson
- Except maintenance of fences to keep animals in
- Bolus v Hinstorke
- Excessive use
- Moncrieff v Jamieson
- Does servient owner retain use and possession of servient land? If yes, use is not excessive
- DT and ST must be
owned by different
people
- Creation and formalities
- Legal
- Must be created for the equivalent of
a legal estate
- s1(2) LPA 1925
- Creation
- Statute
- Deed
- S52 LPA 1925
- Must satisfy
provisions of
S1(2) and (3)
of LPA MP
1989
- Prescription
- Reg. Land
- Overrides: s70 LRA 1925
- Unreg. Land
- Purchasers take subject to it
- Equitable
- Registered land
- Only legal easements can override reg. dispos.
- LRA 2002
- Unregistered land
- Must be registered as a land charge
- Created if an easement doesn't satisfy requirements of a legal easement
- Express reservation
- No need for formal conveyance
- s.65 LPA
- Implied reservation
- Necessity
- i.e. If the DT is
land-locked and can't
leave land/access
highway except for over
other land
- Pinnington v Galland
- Manjang v Drameh
- Mutual intention
- Implied Grant
- s62 LPA 1925
- Wright v McAdam
- Requirements
- Capable grantor
- Common Ownership
- Odey v Barber
- Must be capable of being an easement
- Re Ellenborough
- Must have been conveyed
- Wheeldon v Burrows
- The Quasi-DT must be sold first
- The quasi-easement must be continuous and apparent
- The right must be necessary for the enjoyment of the land
- Prescription
- Similar rights
- Public rights
- Right of Way
- 20 years Uninterrupted Use
- s31. Highways Act 1980
- Profits A Prendre
- Usually natural produce
- Crops or animals
- Restrictive Covenants