1956 Established the requirements for a right over land to amount to a valid easement, Owners of the house near Ellenborough park had been granted the right to use it as a leisure garden but during WW2 it had been taken over by the government, By statute, individual landowners were entitled to compensation if they had been deprived of a legal right, The right to use the park was an easement, There must be a dominant and a servient tenement, An easement must accommodate the dominant tenement, Dominant and servient owners must be different persons, The right is capable of forming the subject-matter of a grant, Whether the right are expressed in terms of too wide and vague a character, Whether such rights would amount to rights of joint occupation or would substantially deprive the park owners of proprietorship or legal possession, Whether such rights constitute mere rights of recreation, possessing no quality of utility or benefit, Whether the easement enhances and is connected with the enjoyment of the dominant tenement, Whether the connexion exists is a question of fact depending on the nature of the alleged dominant tenement and the nature of the right granted, In the current case, the houses were for residential purposes, Nature of the right: the part was to be kept as a pleasure ground and kept in good condition, An analogy was proposed by Ds comparing current case to right to visit the Zoo for free, The more appropriate analogy is right to use garden of seller, which enhances the enjoyment of the house sold, The extension of the easement to houses not directly adjacent to the part does not negative it. Wheeldon v Burrows only applicable to grants. Estlablishing the infringement of legal rights will normally entitle the Claimant to damages (although only nominal damages may be awarded in some cases). Therefore a tenant cannot acquire an easement against his landlord, except as to light, although a tenant may by use over a stranger's land gain a prescriptive right of way for his landlord which he can use while he is tenant and which his landlord can grant to a subsequent tenant. Can't constitute claim to possession. asserted that in order to accommodate the dominant tenement, a right must not only benefit the dominant land but must also be "connected with the normal enjoyment of the property". 4. was an English land law case which reformulated the tests for an easement (the scope of the law of easement s). - Hillman v Rogers, - Platt v Crouch
Was A Stag Really Shot In The Crown,
6 Year Presidential Term Pros And Cons,
Can I Take Vitamin C Before Colonoscopy,
Articles R