Get ahead with a $300 test prep scholarship
| Enter to win by Tuesday 9/24
Terms in this set (19)
Regency Villas v Diamon
Case involved people hiring time shares claiming they're entitled to the free use of the sporting and recreational facilities in the park.
e.g. right to a view can't be easement
Hair v Gillman
easement of parking was allowed where man was granted a right to park his one car where there was enough space for three or four.
(Moncreiff v_) Lord Scott: *obiter
"I do not see why landowner should not grant rights of a servitudal character over his land to any extent that he wishes".
Virdi v Chana
right to park in a single parking space as an easement by prescription.
"despite powerful criticisms of that decision by the HoL in Moncrieff, it was not overruled and remains binding to me."
Case was distinguished but reasonable use was amounted to the Servient owner being able to put pots and signs, etc.
Implied easement's necessary for the enjoyment of another permitted easement. E.g. Woodman - grant of a parking easement also leads to a further implied right of way.
Batchelor v Marlow 2003
man was not allowed to fill the parking space with all his cars for 9 hours every work day because that excluded the owner from reasonable use of the land, can't even park his own car
Easement of Necessity
if the land is useless without the implied easement, e.g. the DT is landlocked so needs implied a right of way. E.g. Trimster
transfer of legal title of property from one person to another
For whenever an owner subdivides and sells. The deed can grant the buyer/tenant an easement to enjoy any privilege that the original owner used to enjoy himself over the retained land for the benefit of the land now being sold.
not 'merely temporary', nor 'excessively personal' (e.g. famous person taking the back door).
International Tea Stores
landlord allowed his tenant a license to cross his land. Landlord then sold the leased shop to the tenant. Though the deed said nothing about the easement, he was successful in claiming it's implied. Now taken effect as a legal easement, enforceable against 3rd-party buyers.
not only deeds, but written agreements too. E.g. if the transaction was an equitable lease, Wheeldon could imply an easement to it.
Wood v Waddington
farm owner sold it off in two parts. Woods owned one part, and Waddington the other. Wood claimed the rights of way over a couple of tracks on Waddington's land were include in the subdivision. The previous owner had used the tracks 'continuously' (periodically once a month) and the tracks were 'apparent'. No contrary intention was found. Easement was thus valid.
Law Commission (2011 Report)
supported Lord Scott's approach in Moncrieff after addressing the dissatisfaction people have with the current 'Ouster' principle stating that it "should be abolished".
Wheeldon v Burrows
Similar to Wood v Waddington but with an extra requirement: Implied easement 'reasonably necessary' to enjoy the dominant land. Will not be applied if C already has some other right that is already enjoyed but is less convenient than the easement he is trying to claim for.
o If Wood applies, don't consider Wheeldon.
o If the only reason Wood didn't apply was because the transaction wasn't done by deed, but there was a written agreement and the claimed easement is 'reasonably necessary', then apply Wheeldon