• 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

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/5

Click to flip

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;

5 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
DEF ''W v B' rule'
'Wheeldon v Burrows': landowner uses one part of his land for benefit of another part (e.g. crosses field to reach house). This 'quasi-E' would be an E if sep. ownership or occupation
If he sells the 'quasi-dominant' tenement, he impliedly grants the purchaser that right as an E

NB: failed in 'W v B' as was trying to impliedly reserve

NB: there is a paucity of 'W v B' as standard practice is to expressly exclude it
Rationale of 'W v B' rule
Is about USE; ensures that purchaser (incl. tenant, mortgagee) gets as Es the same rights enjoyed by the prev. owner
Five conditions for 'W v B' rule
'Wheeldon v Burrows':

1) Capable of being an E: as usual

2) Occurring imm. prior to sale: DEF 'immediately' never tested, although some lawyers advise to stop a few months before sale

3) Used by/on behalf of seller: can include 'agents' e.g. visitors
-- 'Hillman v Rogers': owner allowed others to use the road crossing

4) Continuous and apparent use: DEF: visible upon inspection of the land, or use is just obv.
-- Millman v Ellis: fact that lay-by was covered in tarmac
--> Not that is constantly in use; more about visibility

5) Reasonably necessary: for the enjoyment of the land
-- 'Millman v Ellis': this isn't 'necessity'; was enough the lay-by made access to the prop. considerably safer
Conditions (4) and (5)
Confusion as to whether are alternative or cumulative:

- 'W v B': used both 'and' and 'or'
- Have authorities on both

But prob. doesn't matter as in most cases there is both
Exclusion of the 'W v B' rule
Standard conveyancing practice

'Millman v Ellis': need the clearest of words. Express grant of a similar, narrow E does not exclude the implication of the broader E