Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
INTRODUCTION
overview
Nice to see you
Hello I am Joann Lee
- Wh__ I w__ l__ t_ d_ today(let's) is start b_ expaining how the interview is g__ing to r__(structure of the interview).
- I_ a m__(soon) , I'll ask you name and contact details then, give you the ch__ to tell me (i'll let you give) the full background of your case.
- I'll then move o_ t_(next) ask question for advising you
- I'll continue b_ explaining how the firm ch__ f_ the work we un__ (how much you need to pay for our job)
- before we le__ interview, we'll agree be_ ours__ what act__ each of us has to t__ (what we will do)
begin
- I'd like to start by rea__ing you(affirming) that there is no ch__ for today's interview
- would you m__ (would you) giving me full name/ address/ contact details?
- if you can explain to me br__ly(tell me shortly) , why you came to see us
(C: we A are__
we entered into __ and there were delays/problems
I want to now what we can do about it)
- Let's s__ (i see)
so, you entered into,, with ,,
because of their B(issue) you su__ (suffered) some (losses) you are trying to rec__(get back)
|
introduction Nice to see you
Hello I am Joann Lee - What I would like to do today is start by expaining how the interview is going to run. - In a moment, I'll give you name and contact details then, give you the chance to tell me the full background of your case. - I'll then move on to ask question for advising you - I'll continue by explaining how the firm charges for the work we undertake - before we both leave interview, we'll agre between ourselves what actions each of us has to take - I'd like to start by reassuring you that there wil no charge for today's interview - would you mind giving me full name and address and contact details? (- CLIENT)
- if you can explain to me briefly, why you came to see us (- C: we A are__ we entered into __ and there were delays/problems I want to now what we can do about it) shortly restate - Let's see so, you entered into__ with __ because of their B(issue) you sustain some (losses) you are trying to recover
,
|
|
|
detailed background - okay n__ (okay next) , if you can give me the full background st__ w_ the (contract) and the circ__ su__ the delay(what happened at the time) (C: so, we have been we decided to about a yr ago, and A assured that __- all was fine until ___ got a call told me ___ the problem is that __ what I would like to hear from you is do i have to __ any other way having said that__ becaus ewe are going to be __ ) m__ con__ - So, your main concerns are 0 do you have to (pay for the invoice ) 0 can you rec__(get back) 0 any other comp__(amount to claim) 0 and finally, you are k__ to pres__ (protect)-- 0 avoid any lit__(court proceedings) which may da__ (affect negatively) relationship - do you have anything else you wish to tell before I move onto the next stage |
detailed background
- okay now, if you can give me the full background starting with the (contract) and the circumstances surrounding the delay (C: so, we have been we deciced to about a yr ago, and A assured that __- all was fine until ___ got a call told me ___ the problem is that __ what I would like to hear from you is do i have to __ any other way having said that__ because we are going to be __ ) - So, your main concerns are 0 do you have to (pay for the invoice ) 0 can you recover 0 any other compensation 0 and finally, you are keen to preserve on-going relationship 0 avoid any litigation which may damage relationship - do you have anything else you wish to tell before I move onto the next stage , |
|
|
questioning - thank you for that - I am going to ask you some questions about wh__ you've t__ me(your story) before I go onto advising you contract 0first, you men__(said) you (contract, main document) 0was that a wri__ contract? 0 do you happen to have that with u? date 0date you told me that the (completion) date was 00/0000 price 0price what was the (contract) price? - following the telephone conference you were not__(informed) that,, and you mentioned that,, what was the usual ,, I s__ thank you investigation - And you said, before you ,, -, you asked what is ,, - the name of ,, - do you have the det__ of the investigation? - so in spite of, it was most vi__ op__ (best way) invoice - then you spoke to A, did you know - do you have the invoice with you overdue - is it acually overdue now other amounts are there any other amounts you can qu__(put in numbers) , fin__ lly , as a res__ o_(due to) the delay undertake - for the months of ,, would you have been possible to undertake ,, Rec__(summarise) - just to re__ the things you're most concerned - so I think I have all the ext__ information I need So now I'm going to give you advice |
questioning
- thank you for that - I am going to ask you some questions about what you;ve told me - before I go onto advising you contract 0first, you mentioned you (contract, main document) 0was that a written contract? 0 do you happen to have that with you date 0date you told me that the (completion) date was 00/0000 price 0price what was the (contract) price? - folloiwng the telephone conversation you were notified that--- and you mentioned that___ what was the usual __I see, thank you investigation - And you said, before you __ -, you asked what is __ - the name of ___ - do you have the details of the investigation? - so in spite of, it was most viable option invoice - then you spoke to A, did you know - do you have the invoice with you overdue - is it acually overdue now other amounts are there any other amounts you can quantify, financially out of pocket, as a result of the delay undertake - for the months of ___, would you have been possible to undertake __ recap - just to recap the things you're most concerned - so I think I have all the extra information I need - so now I'm going to give you advice |
|
|
advice ba__ pos__ and opt__ (your standing and choices)
- your basic positions and talk thr__(explain) advice - basically, breach as a result of that,
you need to d__ w_ (two things to handle) - two things you need to deal with - firstly, sh__ they have known that i think we c__ say you are ok th__ (we can assume this is okay) because you have instructed - - second, did you take st__ that you are req__ to t__ in order to min__ ? again we can say yes you did because the investigation shows despite the amount of penalty cha__(demanded) , they were the most economically viable
so, - my ad__ w__ b_ (I advise you) that you have a g__ ch__ of ( you are likely to) rec__ the 200k
- however, you don't have a def__ t_ 700k as that was the contract
- additional com__(money to claim) 0 I don't see that there is 0 because you have not id__to me the lo__ Based on the inst__(your story) that is what I would say but, we will have to see what says in the -
bot__ (conclusion) - the bottomline here is that __ - for the overd__ amount - they can definitely s__
options lit__ - time consuming and af__ relationship other options 1) the 1st option I think you may have is to pay 70k and tell + this approach is b__(nicer) because you'll be se__ u_ a legal po__as the bas__ (you establish legal ground) + again, this is quick and ch__ way - the disadvantage, you have got an exp__(cost) to pay now - also, may sue for the balance in any case
2) the second option - instead of saying you are not paying 700, try to com__ (back down a bit) and say that - - so, what you are doing here is - what you need to do is to go back and discuss what would be acc__(what is okay)
st__g p__(first step) - good starting point is - there are other things you can say in negotiations - there are other things you can say in negotiations, for eg. they give you free -, it is very flexible, you can just discuss
I do think this is better coming from you directly + cheap, + maintain, preserve relationship - opening gap
finally, you can pay the full amount
do you feel you can make the decision now or do you want to talk to the board of directors first
|
advice
I will start by setting out the basic position and options - your basic positions and talk through advice - basically they breached the contract by - as a result of that, you sustain loss
you need to deal with - two things you need to deal with - firstly, should they have known that i think we can say you are okay there because you have instructed - - second, did you take steps that you are required to take in order to minimise? again we can say yes you did because the investigation shows despite the amount of penalty charged, they were the most economically viable
so, - my advice would be that you have a good chance of recovering the 200k - however, you don't have a defense to 700k as that was the contract
- additional compensation 0 I don't see that there is 0 because you have not identified to me the loss based on the instruction that is what I would say but, we will ahve to see what says in the
- bottomline - the bottomline here is that __ - for the overdue amount - they can definitely sue
- options litigation time consuming and affects relationship other options 1) the 1st option I think you may have is to pay 70k and tell + this approach is probably better coming from lawyers becaus you'll be setitng up a legal position as the basis for + again, this is quick and cheap way - the disadvantage, you have got an expense to pay now - also, may sue for the balance in any case
2) the second option is to pay 700 - instead of saying you are not paying 700, try to compromise on the balance - so, what you are doing here is - what you need to do is to go back and discuss with the board of directors what would be acceptable
starting point - good starting point - there are other things you can say in negotiations, for eg. they give you free -, it is very flexible, you can just discuss
I do think this is better coming from you directly
+ cheap, + maintain, preserve relationship - opening gap
finally, you can pay the full amount
do you feel you can make the decision now or do you want to talk to the board of |
|
|
conclusion
- assuming that the client wishes to inst__
cost
- I'll give you the details of our costs mov__for__ from n__(from now),
0 I am Joann Lee, I am charged 50 per hr 0 I am supervised by __ and his name is Roger
0 we are required to ch__ VAT o_ t__ o_ our costs (ask for VAT in addition to costs) at ___%
and we'll also have to p__ o_ (transfer to) you
complaints procedure - problems or concerns 0 you could speak to me
0 f__ that(if it does not work) you speak to the supervisor
0 f__ (if it is not enough) that, written co__ proc__
agree - we have agreed that you'll be sending us the contract and other documents and emails
- I'll then be able to send you the advice al_ w_the cl__c__ information
- when you discuss with your board about perhaps
- an__ el__(what else) we can help you with today
- thank you for coming to see me today
|
conclusion
- assuming that the client wishes to instruct
cost - I'll give you the details of our costs moving forward from now, 0 I am Joann Lee, I am charged 50 per hr 0 I am supervised by __ and his name is Roger 0 we are required to charge VAT on top of our costs at ___% and we'll also have to pass onto you
complaints procedure - problems or concerns 0 you could speak to me 0 failing that you speak to the supervisor 0 failing that, written complaint procedure
agree - we have agreed that you'll be sending us the contract and other documents and emails - I'll then be able to let you have my advice along with the client care information - when you discuss with your board about perhaps, you can come back to me - anything else we can help you with today - thank you for coming to see me today ,
|
|
|
The rem__ f_ the obstr__ of an easement is an act__ for nui__(causing annoyance or inconvenience).
When does an inter__ with an easement ent__ the person with the benefit of the easement to take ac__?
P__ an__ way, what am__ t_(is equal to) an 'act__le' int__ with an easement? An interference will only be act__le if it interferes su__(materially) with the enjoyment of the easement.
In such an action, the claimant will have to prove:
· t__ to the easement (e.g. by way of express grant);
· the sc__ of the easement; and
· that there has been a sub__l int__ce(obstruction) of the right.
In the case of the obstruction of an easement conf__ (giving) a private ri__ of w__,
the obstruction is only acti__le if it is cons__(thought) to be sub__(material).
One of the tests the court will co__(think of) in est__(finding) this is:
Does the obs__ (interference) mean the right cannot be subs__ and prac__ ex__ as conv__(materially and efficiently used) as before?
If the answer is y__, an inj__ may be gr__(given) prev__ the obstruction of the easement.
For example:
1) In Pettey v Parsons [1914] 2 Ch 662 the er__ of a gate acr_ a pr__ ri__ of w__ (building gate obstructing the easement) was held to be no inter__ w_ the right
prov__(if) “proper fac__(tools or ways) [had] been gi__ to the do__t ow__”.
In this case, the defendant sold land adjo__(next to) his own to the plaintiff, who cov__(promised) to construct a road on that land, along which the defendant was to have a right of way.
The plaintiff cons__(built) the road and a gate across the road, su__ th__the defendant could not in fact use the road wi_ou_ g_ing thr_ the gate(in a way the defendant had to go through the gate if it were to excercise easement). The defendant res__ imm__ by rem__(he reacted by taking it away) the railing and the gate.
The Court held that the private right of way had not been subst__ly interf__ w_(blocked) by the ere__(building) of the gate.
The plaintiff was ent__ to er__ a gate s_ l__ as it was kept open in bus__ ho__and never lo__(had the right to build gate if only it complied with followings: open working hours and not closed) .
2) In Guest Estates Ltd v Milner’s Safes Ltd (1911) 28b TLR 59 it was held that a lo__ ga__ blo__ing a private right of way would be a su__ obs__ (material interference) giv__ r__ t_(causing) "ac__ inte__ of the easement".
In this case, the plaintiff ten__ had a right of way that was blo__(prevented) by the defendant landlord's lo__(closing) of a gate. The defendants cont__(argued) that they were entitled to lock the gates if the plaintiff was supplied with suff__(enough) keys.
The Court disagreed. I_ the op__ of the Court(in court's view), the plaintiff had a free ri__ of pa__(right to move freely) and it was an obst__(block) to keep the gate locked and it was no ans__(not right) to say that keys would be su__(provided).
It was not difficult to app__ the inc__e if the plaintiff were obl__ to(it was easy to see the consequences arising from requesting) ca__ keys; it was impr__(not convenient ).
Remedies The remedy s__(demanded) will de__ up_ the nature of the Claim. Est__ the infri__ of legal rights will nor__ ent__ the client t_ d__ (showing the breach will usually give them right to recover money).
Rel__(solutions) cl__ (found) from the Court may also be:
(i) a court decl__(say publicly) of the Claimant’s rights or
(ii) an inj__(ordering to do or not to do).
Such rel__(solution) however may only be granted where the c__ consi__ it ju__(right) and equ__ that a declaration should be made or an injunction granted. In the case of sub__ int__ (material disturbance) with the enj__(use) of an easement this is a civ__ wr__(offense) ak_ to pri__ nu__.The rem__(reliefs) available to the claimant for such a nuisance or threatened nuisance include a decl__ of rights.
|
The remedy for the obstruction of an easement is an action for nuisance.
When does an interference with an easement entitle the person with the benefit of the easement to take action?
Put another way, what amounts to an 'actionable' interference with an easement? An interference will only be actionable if it interferes substantially
with the enjoyment of the easement.
In such an action, the claimant will have to prove:
· title to the easement (e.g. by way of express grant);
· the scope of the easement; and
· that there has been a substntial interference of the right.
In the case of the obstruction of an easement conferring a private right of way, the obstruction is only actionable if it is considered to be substantial.
One of the tests the court will considers in establishing this is:
Does the obstruction mean the right cannot be substantially and practically exercised as conviniently as before?
If the answer is yes, an injunction may be granted preventing the obstruction of the easement.
For example:
In Pettey v Parsons [1914] 2 Ch 662 the erection of a gate across a private right of way was held to be no interference with the right provided “proper facilities [had] been given to the dominant owner”.
In this case, the defendant sold land adjourning his own to the plaintiff, who covenanted to construct a road on that land, along which the defendant was to have a right of way.
The plaintiff constructed the road and a gate across the road, such that the defendant could not in fact use the road without going through the gate. The defendant responded immediately by removing the railing and the gate.
The Court held that the private right of way had not been substantially interfered with by the erection of the gate. The plaintiff was entitled to erect a gate so long as it was kept open in business hours and never locked.
In Guest Estates Ltd v Milner’s Safes Ltd (1911) 28b TLR 59
- it was held that a locked gate blocking a private right of way would be a substantial obstruction giving rise to "actionable interference of the easement". checkk!!! tenant!!
In this case, the plaintiff tenant had a right of way that was blocked by the defendant landlord's locking of a gate. The defendants contended that they were entitled to lock the gates if the plaintiff was supplied with sufficient keys.
The Court disagreed. In the opinion of the Court, the plaintiff had a free rights of passage and it was an obstuction to keep the gate locked and it was no answer to say that keys would be supplied. It was not difficult to appreciate the inconvenience if the plaintiff were obligated to carry keys; it was impractical.
Remedies
The remedy sought will depend upon the nature of the Claim. Establishing the infringement of legal rights will normally entitle the Claimant to damages. Rel__(other solutions) claimed from the Court may also be:
(i) a court declaration of the Claimant’s rights or
(ii) an injunction.
Such relief however may only be granted where the court considers it just and equitable that a declaration should be made or an injunction granted. In the case of substantial interference with the enjoyment of an easement this is a civil wrong akin to private nuisance. The remedies available to the claimant for such a nuisance or threatened nuisance include a declaration of rights. |
|
|
Nature of Easements A ri__ that a pr__ ow__ has to some u__ of the property of another's. (capability to use other's land) The land t_ which these rights are ann__(attahced to) is called the 'dom__ ten__', and the land ov__ which the rights are ex__ the 'ser__ tenement'. Types of Easements some of the common easements are: (1) rights of way; (2) rights to light; (3) rights in respect of water Creation of Easements easements may be cr__ or ar__ (come into existence) : (a) expressly in a d__d; (b) by implied grant ari__ o_ of the cir__ (events surrounding) of the case; (c) by pre__ i. a_ common law; ii. under the doc__ of a lost mod__n gr__; or iii. by st__. An easement may be bi__(effective) either leg_y or eq_ly. A legal easement is created by being regist__ and will ordinarily bind subs__ ow__ (later person who owns) of the property. An equitable easement bi__ a subsequent owner depending on the case. There are currently four pri__ met__(main ways) of impli__ of easements. (1) the rule in Wh__ v Bu__; (2) section 6_ of the Law of Property Act 1925; (3) easements of ne__; and (4) easements of int__ u__. (1) and (2) gi__ ri__ to(create) the acquisition of easements as a res__ o_ - using the grantor’s land(due to using the land) pr__ t_ the relevant transaction(before the deal) and - are broadly based on the p__ ex__ of particular rights(based on how they were used in the past). (3) and (4) are f__ lo__g(looking at future) where the court is required to ex__(look at) - what the parties to a tra__were cont__" in t__ of" the future us_ of the properties (how parties thought it will be used in the future) (a) a_ c__ law; (b) un_ the doctr__e of a lost mo__ grant; and (c )by statute. The whole doc__ of pres__n, apart from that created by statute, depends upon the presu__(assumption) that wh_re some "pro__ int__" has been cl__d as a right(argued) , and enjoyed a_ su_(so), there must have been a la__ ori__ by grant(legal basis). Prescription at common law is "based up_" a pres__(가정된) grant made very early, fixed as the year 1189. The user must be 'a_ of ri__t' and therefore e.g. not by per__(granted by others) . Further, the use must have been cont__(consistent) so that the asse__ right has been exer__whenever desi__(used whenever want to). As stated, a claim to a presumed easement based on prescription at common law might be def__ by ad__evidence of inte__of enjoyment or the right was "fou__ up" iso__ acts(it might be lost by showing evidence of breaks or showing that it was based on separate incidents). This resulted in Claimants ple__(claiming) the doctrine of a lost modern grant. Claimants would have to prove (i) long enj__(use) of the right, (ii) that the right had been conf__(given) by a grant which had been lost by the claimant or a predecessor in title. This doctrine allowed Judges to att__ or pres__ a la__ or__(assume there is a legal source) to any long continued enjoyment coupled with a claim of right. Proprietary Estoppel Easements may also ar__(happen) via the ap__(relying on) of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. Examples of Right of Way Disputes Sometimes disputes arise conc__(related to) whether rights of way exist in the first place eg if whether they have de facto been enjoyed for a sufficiently long period, and in the case of rights claimed by long enjoyment , without force, secrecy or permission Other disputes concern the way in which the claimed right is being enjoyed. Others may rel__ w_ (concern) dist__ or interference of rights, however acquired. Right claimed must not be too Extensive If the right granted in relation to the area over which it is exer__le is such that it would le__ the serv__ owner wo any re__ use of his land(deprive owner of sensible use) , whether for parking or anything else, it could not be an easement. Implied easements Often difficult disputes ar__(happen) conc__(regarding) the implied easements where land was previously in common ownership, however they ar__(happen). Such disputes can involve freehold and leasehold property. |
,Nature of Easements A right that a property owner has to some use of the (usually adjoining) property of another's. The land to which these rights are annexed is called the 'dominant tenement', and the land over which the rights are exercised the 'servient tenement'. Types of Easements some of the common easements are: (1) rights of way;(2) rights to light; (3) rights in respect of water; and(4) rights to support; Creation of Easements easements may be created or arise: (a) by express reservation or grant in a deed; (b) by implied reservation or grant arising out of the circumstances of the case; (c) by prescription: i. at common law; ii. under the doctrine of a lost modern grant; or iii. by statute. An easement may be binding either legally or equitably (for this distinction and the ways in which these different types of easement can be created, see How to create an easement). A legal easement is created by being registered and will ordinarily bind subsequent owners of the property. An equitable easement binds a subsequent owner only if he or she was aware of the easement at the time of the sale. Implied Easements There are currently four principal methods of implication of easements. (1) the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows; (2) section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925; (3) easements of necessity; and (4) easements of intended use. (1) and (2) take effect only on grant and both give rise to the acquisition of easements as a result of use of the grantor’s land prior to the relevant transaction and are broadly based on the past exercise of particular rights. (3) and (4) on the other hand, take effect both on grant and on reservation and are forward looking where the court is required to examine what the parties to a transaction were contemplating in terms of the future use of the properties in question. Creation by Prescription A right to an easement may be established by prescription as follows: (a) at common law; (b) under the doctrine of a lost modern grant; and (c )by statute. The whole doctrine of prescription, apart from that created by statute, depends upon the presumption that where some property interest has been claimed as a right, and enjoyed as such, there must have been a lawful origin by grant. A claim by prescription must be in favour of the fee simple of the dominant tenement as against the fee simple of the servient tenement. Therefore, usually a tenant cannot acquire an easement against his landlord. Prescription at common law is based upon a presumed grant made very early fixed as the year 1189. The user must be 'as of right' and therefore e.g. not by permission. Further, the user must have been continuous so that the asserted right has been exercised whenever desired. As stated, a claim to a presumed easement or profit based on prescription at common law might be defeated by adducing evidence of interruption of enjoyment or the right was founded upon isolated acts. This resulted in Claimants pleading the doctrine of a lost modern grant. Claimants would have to prove (i) long enjoyment of the right claimed, (ii) that the right had been conferred by a grant which had been lost by the claimant or a predecessor in title. This doctrine allowed Judges to attribute or presume a lawful origin to any long continued enjoyment coupled with a claim of right. Proprietary Estoppel Easements may also arise via the application of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. Examples of Right of Way Disputes Sometimes disputes arise concerning whether rights of way or profits de facto exist in the first place eg if whether they have de fact been enjoyed for a sufficiently long period, and in the case of rights claimed by long enjoyment , without force (nec vi), without secrecy (nec clam) and without permission (nec precario) Other disputes concern the way in which the claimed right is being enjoyed e.g. a right to pass from A to B to C does not allow the party with the claimed right to divert to point D. Whilst others may relate with disturbance or interference of rights, however acquired. Further examples concern, whether the right claimed is in the nature of an easement eg in the leading case of Re Ellenborough Park the CA (Lord Evershed MR) asked:(1) are the rights purported to be granted too wide and vague in character?(2) are the rights mere rights of recreation? and(3) do such rights amount to joint occupation or substantially deprive theservient tenement owners of possession? There needs to be a sufficient nexus between the dominant and servient land for the easement to exist in the first place, which sometimes forms the basis of disputes.Whether the right claimed is reasonably necessary for the better enjoyment of the dominant tenement or whether the right claimed is too tenuous to amount to an easement sometimes is the area of dispute: eg in Moody v Steggles the grant of a right to fix a signboard to the adjoining property advertising the public house which constituted the dominant tenement was held to comprise an easement. In Copeland v Greenhalf leaving carts and carriages on the neighbour’s verge was not objectionable on the ground that it accommodated the wheelwright’s business being conducted on the purportedly dominant land. Right claimed must not be too Extensive If the right granted in relation to the area over which it is exercisable is such that it would leave the servient owner without any reasonable use of his land, whether for parking or anything else, it could not be an easement. Implied easements Often difficult disputes arise concerning the implied easements where land was previously in common ownership, however they arise. Such disputes can involve freehold and leasehold property. |
|
|
I am the Window Cleaner of a pensioner who owns a flat above a council rental ground floor flat in a terraced group of 2 stories flats. Some of them own their flats. Others are council rental. The neighbour below rents from the council and moved in earlier this year and has got dogs and has erected a large wooden locked gate and enclosed high fencing making it impossible for me to clean my customers rear windows. She is extremely stressed and upset that this neighbour has done this. The neighbour below doesn't care and my customer's deeds to the property clearly show that she has a right of way and full access to the rear of her property. All these flats originally had waist high metal gates which, with a very defined path are suppose to be completely clear for easy access. I also believe that the rear access should be clear for health and safety reasons and fire escape routes. This blockage she has erected must be in breach of health & safety and fire laws. She has contacted her local council and they do not care. What can she do legally as her deeds clearly show that she has legal access to the rear of her property? Thank you. |
, |
|
|
Can someone give me some advice please.I purchased some land at the rear of my property which also goes behind my neighbours garden and around the side of his garden to a road. I erected fencing and gates which I padlocked. The neighbour then insists I give him a key as he claims he has a prescriptive easement. He did not protest about the fencing or locked gates for well over a year. Does this mean he's claim no longer exists? I have been in touch with LR and they advised me that they have recorded his information but NOT verified his claim.Before I purchased the land my neighbour purchased an extra strip of land down the side of his house so to me there is not benefit to his property over my land.Any help would be much appreciated. |
, |
|
|
you want to pr__ an ong__ relationship (continuing relations) you su__ ( suffer ) some loss in profits we can say y__ they should have done - any other ac__ to the land sold no exi__ road - show com__ int__ - necessary for re__ enj__t + has it been used cont__ + ap__ - exc__ for how long - at least 20 - by implication or prescription we are ok__ there and all of this is sub__ t_ it seems unav__(unescapable) really to avoid this we will cons__ opt__ (assess ways) we are b__ to the first point is not at__(appealing) but avoid litigation mov__ for__ fr_ there (starting from there) I should be able to per__(maybe) you can g__ back to me later ra__(ask and deal) with me first r__ thr__ det__ of cost (explain cost) unco__ (unhelpful) proof of au__ (respresenting) ere__(construction ) of several in a short route bl__ o_entirely (totally hindered) mediation is still a vol__ pro__(on own will) and the mediator cannot advice but once the settlement is signed should be bi__ (be enforced) parties control the out__(result) free to pur__ legal pro__(can take it to court) action for nui__ (inconvenience) ent__(give right) one to take an action subs__ and pra__ excercised, and as conv__(easily) as before - no interference with the right provided “proper fac__(methods) [had] been given to the dominant owner” one was entitled to construct a gate s_ long as it was kept open in business hours and never l__(closed) - In the opinion of the Court, the plaintiff had a free rights of passage and it was an obstuction to keep the gate locked and it was no answer to say that keys would be sup__ . It was not difficult to ap__ the inconvenience if the plaintiff were oblig__ to ca__ keys (asked to carry keys) ; it was impr__ (inconvenience) |
you want to preserve an ongoing relationship you sustain some loss in profits we can say yes they should have done - any other access to the land sold no existing road - show common intention - necessary for reasonable enjoyment + has it been used continuous + apparent - excersised for how long - at least 20 - by implication or prescription we are okay there and all of this is subject to it seems unavoidable really to avoid this we will consider options we are back to the first point is not attractive but avoid litigation moving forward from there I should be able to perhaps you can get back to me later raise with me first run through details of cost uncooperative proof of authority erection of several in a short route blocked off entirely mediation is still a voluntary process and the mediator cannot advice but once the settlement is signed should be binding parties control the outcome free to pursue legal proceeding action for nuisance entitle one to take an action substantially and practically excercised, and as conveniently as before - no interference with the right provided “proper facilities [had] been given to the dominant owner”one was entitled to construct a gate so long as it was kept open in business hours and never locked. - In the opinion of the Court, the plaintiff had a free rights of passage and it was an obstuction to keep the gate locked and it was no answer to say that keys would be supplied. It was not difficult to appreciate the inconvenience if the plaintiff were obligated to carry keys; it was impractical |
