Question 1 The legal issues arising out of Margaret’s sale of three terraced houses to Arthur, James and Barry, and Arthur’s subsequent sale of his purchase to Samantha involves the law of easements or right of way. An easement is defined as a right over another’s land and if the easement is comprised of a proprietary interest in realty, its benefit and burden can pass to successive owners…
The Court of Appeal provided that the four essential characteristics of an easement must exist. First there is required to be a dominant and servient tenement in which a benefit (to the dominant tenement) and burden (to the servient tenement) are each defined. Secondly, the easement must be capable of benefiting the dominant tenement. Thirdly, the dominant and servient tenement must own and occupy different pieces of land. Fourthly, the easement must be one that is capable of being created. In other words, the person creating the easement must have the authority to do so and the recipient must have the right to accept it. The easement must be unambiguous and the servient tenement may not be denied excessive rights.2 An evaluation of the facts of the case demonstrate that there are benefits and burdens, in which the dominant tenement acquires a benefit and the servient tenement is not denied too many rights. For example, Margaret permitted Arthur to park his caravan in her garden with the understanding that she could sit a satellite dish on his roof. Since this was placed in the Conveyance of registered title, it is a legal easement. Section 1(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 essentially provides that a legal easement arises once it is conveyed.3 Likewise the easement permitting James to temporarily store material in Margaret’s garden is also a legal easement since it is conveyed via the conveyance. Moreover, by placing these easements in the conveyance, the requirements contained in Section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which mandate that a legal estate in land may only be created by deed.4 Moreover, as registered land, the easements will not be legal unless they are registered.5 In other words only those easements expressly created in the conveyance of registered land will be binding on the dominant and servient tenements. Therefore the oral agreement that Arthur may hang a sign advertising his business on Margaret’s wall is not binding on Margaret and successive owners. To this end, Barry as a successive owner of Margaret’s property is at liberty to have the sign removed. Wheeldon v Borrows however, indicates that Barry might be bound by the oral easement which creates an equitable right. In this case Thesiger LJ delineates the circumstances in which a right created by an easement that was not express, can be acquired by a successive owner over the land. According to Thesiger LJ, successive owners acquires all of the obvious and continuous easement or any easement that is essential for ensuring that the property is reasonably enjoyed provided that easement was used by the vendor just before the property was sold. However, the second rule expressed by Thesiger LJ in Wheeldon v Burrows suggests that Barry may not be bound by the oral easement. By virtue of the second rule, where the vendor sells adjourning land and fails to give expression to an implied or imperfect easement, he may not claim it at a later date.6 It therefore follows that since Margaret failed to expressly provide for the right to hang a sign on her wall, she was not bound by this easement and as such cannot pass the easement on to successive owners of the land. It would appear that each of the easements that were ...
Cite this document
(“Land Law Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3250 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/finance-accounting/23126-land-law
(Land Law Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3250 Words)
“Land Law Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3250 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/finance-accounting/23126-land-law.
(ii) Mr. Wood has a six year lease to the cottage of the farm though he has never lived there. Further the lease allows him to buy the freehold on sale of the farm. (iii) There is a shortcut in the land used by neighbours to the local pub and they claim to have prior right to its use and will continue using it.
People, who live together without being married, but have a relationship similar to that of married couples, are known as cohabiters. A presumption of marriage can rise from cohabitation. The test of establishing the presumption of marriage is depended on the length of cohabitation, general repute as a man and wife and not friendship only, whether the union has children and the degree to which they bring together their financial resources.
In Gissing v Gissing, Lord Diplock established the manner in which a cohabitee can claim a beneficial or equitable interest in a home to which he/she does not have legal title. Lord Diplock essentially established what is referred to as the common intention constructive trust.
for distinguishing between fixtures and fittings. These tests highlight not only the importance of distinguishing between fixtures and fittings, but the major differences between the two. Although the distinctions are not always clear, a common trend can be identified: the significance of the item in terms whether or not it has become so attached to the land, that it should not be regarded as anything other than a part of the land.
If permission to use Redcap is personal, Noddy’s remedies will exist under the law of contract. However, if the permission/licence to use Redcap created a proprietary interest in the land, Noddy’s remedies are founded on principles applicable land law.
It defines the range of functions persons may exercise in given situations at a given time, the so called functional theory of property. The idea of property in land is a consequence of social evolution regardless of the origin of the property and the legal system recognizes a category of rights relating to a property.
A lease of land involves both proprietary and contractual rights for both the landlord and the tenant, and so is subject to contradictory pressures. A tenant is the 'owner' of land, albeit temporarily and subject to restriction but equally he is a consumer contracting for the provision of 'service'.
le of termination by fourteen days notice in writing.1 Specifically, the agreement was not intended to permit the appellant protection from eviction under the Rents Act.2 The appellant enjoyed exclusive possession of the room under the license and made an application to
consequence of social evolution regardless of the origin of the property and the legal system recognizes a category of rights relating to a property. Property law declares what society regards as property, it creates or constitutes property rights, defines the legal incidence