• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/13

Click to flip

13 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Re Ellenborough Park
1. Dominant and servient tenement

2. Easement must accomadate dominant tenement

3. Dominant and servient owners must be different persons

4. Right over land does not equal easement UNLESS capable forming subject matter of grant
Two lands, two owners
Establishes closeness

Must benefit LAND (Hill & Tupper: canal case)

'Normal enjoyment'

BUT not 'mere amusement' --- but garden okay?
Three rules implicit in:

"Right over land does not equal easement UNLESS capable forming subject matter of grant"
Require me to do something (except maintain fence) --->
Moncrieff v Jameson

Benefit you w/o acitivity on your part except remove support, block access to water, air, light, etc.
---> Phipps v Pears (NO OTHER NEGATIVE EASEMENTS)

No excessive rights over my land
---> Batchelor v Marlow: NO can park in specific place
----> Virdi v Chana: can do so?
= confusion, maybe reasonable use binding

-Intention to create right in rem
Express creation of easement
Reserve during sale or express agreement
Implied creation of easement
Re Webb's Lease: probably intended by parties, as a matter of fact

---> if facts trigger special rules
= impute easement due to utility + low grade consent
Common intention
Transfer of landlocked end, easement created to allow access to land, Easement out of neccesity
Particular person
I lease you lower floor for restaurant, restaurant needs ventilation duct, easement conferred. WONG V BEAUMONT PROPERTY
Wheeldon and Burrows
Prior usage

I owned AND occupied A and B. I transfer B. Before transfer: quasi-easement, continuous and apparent; neccesary for reasonable enjoyment
Sec 62
Prior usage

Owned both, occupied one

-no continuous and apparent mandate
-license must be easement shaped, e,g, irrevocable (no reservation for original owner)
Impied reservation
No rules under Wheeldon v Burrows, but courts do find it if needed

(CORP OF LONDON V RIGGS)
Prescription
Utility + consent; not neccesity

Using land for 20+ years, etc.
Formalities
Deed - registed
No deed - no registration
Prop. estoppel
Effectiveness against disponees
Legal: express/ implied granted; reserved by deed; created by prescription

Equitable: state contract, prop. estoppel

If registered...binding.
If not...disponee knows, used in last year, obvious then binding

But can be overring interest (both legal and equitable(