Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Transfers of Interest - Coggle Diagram

- - - - One of in the case of easement is in this case consider whether the existence of three doors along the right road is a significant disturbance to the right road.
      - This case shows that whether the construction of the gate across the right road is a viable encroachment depending on the convenience of the dominant landowner will continue to exercise the rights as originally granted in this case, it is the effect of a combination of three gates at close range that makes the difference.
      - The High Court held that the presence of Gate 2 implied that three gates were less than 100 metres apart. It was this proximity of the gates that led the judge to conclude that there was a significant interference with the right of way. Jordans were ordered to remove Gate 2 and to pay some nominal damages.
    - - The Court concluded that, though the grant of an easement in this case was novel, given the greater running costs and operational responsibilities, the grant of purely recreational (including sporting) rights over land which genuinely accommodate adjacent land may be the subject matter of an easement.
      - The court considered the validity of easements of recreational facilities.
      - Sir Geoffrey Vos said: ‘the requirement that an easement must be a ‘right of utility and benefit’ is the crucial requirement.
- - - - A guide to equitable liens setting out the circumstances in which an equitable lien can arise by operation of law or when awarded as a proprietary equitable remedy for breach of trust or fiduciary duty.
    - - A lien created by operation of law not requiring the consent of, or a security agreement with, the debtor (for example, tax liens and mechanic's liens).
  - - - Inten on to create a lien is mandatory
      - Intention to deposit the IDT or duplicate lease with the lender as a security for the loan andfor no other purpose must be proved.
      - They argued that since the charge was not enforceable, the lien shouldn't be enforced either. But the court held that the lien in this case was a statutory lien and has its existence independent from the charge.
      - Act 56 NLC 1965-part 16 section 281 (4) t- a lien holder shall, on the written request of the proprietor or lessee, and within such reasonable period as is specified in the request, produce the IDT or duplicate lease at any Registry or Land Office so specified for any purpose which it is required under any provision of this Act.
- - - - The applicants sought for the extension of the caveat registered against a piece of land until the civil suit filed by them against the registered proprietors, M. Bhd. had been finally disposed of, or until the payment of security by M. Bhd., or until the respondents had obtained an order for sale.
      - M. Bhd. had charged the title to the applicant on December 2, 1975 as a collateral security against H.
      - -The respondents to whom title had already been charged, refused to give their consent to the second charge. -As the second charge had not been registered the applicants entered a caveat.
      - charged the land to the respondents to secure repayment of a loan and under Clause 6 of the charge consent of the respondent must be obtained first before any further security could be executed over the land.
    - - The chargee sought to sell the land, chargor objected on basis that Form 16A should been registered.
      - The loan was to be paid in instalments until request made.
      - Usage with an incorrect registration form.
      - The result of this case is Federal Court (FC) held that Form 16A was correct as the statutory form is flexible enough and it was not to deviate or mislead, hence correct by virtue of the Interpretation Act.