Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Easements revision, Regency Villas Title Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe)…

- - - - Apply:
        
        Percy owns the DT and Vince owns the ST | 3. where they have different ownership/occupation
      - It accommodates the DT because it grants ease of access to Percy and leads to the main road
        
        Hill v Tupper: held that the right given was not an easement because it merely connects to the business enterprise he was running. Held to only be a licence (only a mere personal right), did not enhance the enjoyment of any DT
        
        Moody v Steggles: held that easement was created because the right to the signage did not only benefit the business directly but also accommodated the land that was going to be used as a pub (it accommodated the DT and enhanced the enjoyment of the land)
      - Vince is a capable grantor, while Percy is a capable grantee, the rights are clear to both the grantor and grantee, it is a recognized category of easements
- - - - Apply:
        
        Percy owns the DT and Vince owns the ST | 3) where they have different ownership/occupation
      - It DOES NOT accommodate the DT because:
        
        Because the parking of the vintage cars is only a mere personal right and not and did not enhance the enjoyment of the DT
        
        Hill v Tupper: held that the right given was not an easement because it merely connects to the business enterprise he was running. Held to only be a licence (only a mere personal right) did not enhance the enjoyment of the DT
        
        Newman v Jones:
        
        The right for landowner to park a car anywhere in a defined area nearby was capable of being an easement. This was genuine sharing and first come first serve basis parking. However, if there is an allocated space, there could not be a easement
        
        London Bleinheim estates
        
        As long as you don't deprive the owner of any enjoyment of the land, capable of amounting to easement
      - Vince is a capable grantor while Percy is a capable grantee, the rights are clear to both the grantor and grantee, it is a recognized category of easements
- - - - Apply:
        
        Percy owns the DT and Vince owns the ST | 3. Where they have different ownership/occupation
      - It accommodate the DT because Percy and Vince used it to store their stuff
      - Vince is a capable grantor, while Percy is a capable grantee, the rights are sufficiently defined between Percy and Vince, and it is a recognized category of easement per Wright and McAdam - the right of storage was capable of being an easement
- - - - Apply:
        
        Percy owns the DT and Vince owns the ST | 3. where they have different ownership/occupation
      - It accommodates the DT because:
        
        even if the drain did not accommodate the DT directly, it accommodated the land as a draining system for the property per Moody v Steggles
      - Vince is a capable grantor, while Percy is a capable grantee, the rights are clear to both the grantee and the grantor, the right to drainage can be recognized per McGrath v Parkside Hotels where the fire escape route was generally over the ST but it qualifies as an easement
  - - - The use for drainage was not pressured by Vince, the use of the drainage wasn't kept a secret for Vince, since its a drainage Percy used it as it is, he doesn't need permission for it
    - - The drainage is connected to each of their properties (DT and ST)
    - - Drainage can be assumed to be there for a long time, was there even before Percy moved in, the drainage has been used already