Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Easements (Characteristics - Re Ellenborough Park (Capable of forming the…

- - - - Hill V Tupper
      - Moody V Steggles
      - London and Blenheim Estates V Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd (1992)
      - Platt V Crouch (2003)
    - - Polo Woods V Shelton - Agar (2009)
  - - - Re Aldred (1610) right to a view
    - - William V Old International V Arya (2009)
      - Cardwell V Walker (2003)
    - - Batchelor V Marlowe (2001)
      - Moncrieff V Jamieson (2007)
      - Wright V McAdam (1949)
      - Copeland V Greenhalf
      - Grigsby V Melville (1974)
- - - - Llewellyn V Lorey (2011)
      - Presumption if the owner was in possession at the commencement of the long use. If not it's possible to assert but difficult to substantiate.
  - - - Lighterage Co V London Graving Dock Co - the use must be 'open' - that is of such character that an ordinary owner would have a reasonable opportunity of becoming aware.
- - - - Registered as title
        
        Legal
      - Not registered as title
        
        Equitable
      - Not required to be registered (e.g. lease for less than 7 years
        
        Legal
    - - Legal
- - - - Where parties are already in separate ownership
      - Where the owner sells or leases the land to another - the potential dominant tenement
  - - - Grant
        
        Wong V Beaumont
        
        Mangjang V Drammeh (1990)
    - - Re-Dodd - No necessity where it's merely inconvenient
      - Sweet V Sommer (2004)
    - - Stafford V Lee
      - Donovan V Rana (2014)
    - - Rule can be expressly excluded
        
        Millman V Ellis
      - Must be within the provisions of Re Ellenborough Park
      - the right must actually have been used prior to the sale
        
        Alford V Hannaford
      - Must be in use by the owner - not third parties
        
        Hillman V Rogers - used by agent of the owner was acceptable
      - Must be continuous and aparent and necessary for reasonable enjoyment
        
        Coninuous and apparent
        
        Millman V Ellis - lay by covered in tarmac
        
        Wood V Waddington (2015) Does not mean continuous use - just regularly in an uninterrupted manner.
        
        Necessary for reasonable enjoyment
        
        Hillman V Rogers - should not be equated with necessity
- - - - Existing before LRA 2002
        
        Binding as overriding interests under Sch 2