• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8

John was the registered owner of two semi-detached houses, numbers 21 and 23 London Road. Number 21 had a garage attached, but number 23 did not. At the back of each of the houses there was a long garden. John occupied number 21himself and in 2000 he gran

Extracts from this document...


John was the registered owner of two semi-detached houses, numbers 21 and 23 London Road. Number 21 had a garage attached, but number 23 did not. At the back of each of the houses there was a long garden. John occupied number 21himself and in 2000 he granted a five-year lease of number 23 to his friend Fred. John told Fred:" Feel free to park your car in the garage, as I am not thinking of getting a car myself at the moment". John also allowed Fred to use the swimming pool in the garden of number 21 and to pick flowers there whenever he wanted. In 2005, the lease was renewed for a further five years and in 2007 John sold number 21 to Alice. Alice has told Fred to keep out of her garden and to remove his car from her garage which she wants to use for her own car. Advise Fred. Nicholas Payne 4150081 Land Law Assignment Alison Cronin This concerns licenses and the servitudes; easements and profit a prendre with the key issue being whether the agreements that John (J) and Fred (F) have in place can become binding on a third party, Alice (A)and are capable of being propriety rights after the title has been sold. An easement is a right benefiting one piece of land (known as the dominant tenement) ...read more.


The effect of such a grant was explained in Reilly v Booth [1890]13 where the court ruled that exclusive or unrestricted use of a piece of land passes the property or ownership in that land, and that there was no easement known to law which gave exclusive and unrestricted use of a piece of land. Two cases in particular have illustrative importance Saeed14 in which the court decided to leave open the potential easement status of car parking and instead weigh up the issue of exclusive use and Montrose v Shamash.15 Using these aforementioned cases in relation to F it is clear to see that his continued use violates this rule of exclusivity which would prevent A from using her own garage and land, even if hypothetically F only used the garage on evenings and weekends or perhaps just during the day using Batchelor v Marlow16 which involved car parking on business hours on weekdays, although not the same, a similarity could be drawn but this would still render A unable to enjoy her land. Another case to reiterate this point is Platt v Crouch.17 It is with this the conclusion can be drawn that this is in fact a bare license which is a mere permission, and as is stated in Thomas v Sorrell18 it confers no proprietary status thus not binding or 'running with the land' as an incorporeal heriditament. ...read more.


Word Count 1494 1 Law of Property Act 1925 2 Duke of Sutherland v Heathcote [1892] 1 CH 475 at 484 per Lindley LJ 3 Pennant Hills Golf Club v Roads and Traffic Authorities of New South Wales (1999) 9 BPR 17011 at 17015 per Stein JA 4 The convict timbergetters of Pennant Hills : a history & biographical register / by Ralph Hawkins 5 Bird v Province of New Brunswick 6 Gray and Gray Elements of Land 7 Re Ellenborough Park [1955] 3 W.L.R. 91 8 London Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks [1992] 1 W.L.R. 1278 9 Hill v Tupper 159 E.R. 51 Ex Ct 10 Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) LR 12 ChD 31. 11 Cheshire's Modern Real Property, 7th ed., pp. 456 cited in Re Ellenborough Park [1955] 3 W.L.R. 91 12 http://virtualestatesbu.com/ver1.2/what/what5.htm (no citation as unreported) 13 Reilly v Booth (1890) 44 Ch D 12 14 Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2002] 2 P & CR 266 15 Montrose Court Holdings Ltd v Shamash [2006] EWCA Civ 251 16 Batchelor v Marlow [2003] 1 WLR 764 17 Platt v Crouch [2003] EWCA Civ 1100 (CA) 18 Thomas v Sorrell (1673) 19 Mounsey v Ismay (1865) 159 E.R 621 20 Dukart v District of Surrey (1978) 86 DLR (3d) 609 at 616 21 Riley v Penttila (2000) 135 NTR 22 Reid v Moreland Timber 5 (1946) 73 C.L.R. 1, at p. 13 23 Muskey v Hill (1839) 5Bing (NC) 694 at 710 ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Land Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Land Law essays

  1. An easement essentially is a right in anothers land and confers both a benefit ...

    In terms of by way of necessity, a property to be conveyed can have an implied easement attached onto it, if the use of the easement is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the property and is apparent, continuous and in existence at the precise time when the property is being conveyed.

  2. Leasehold problem case. In 2005 Miranda sublet the premises for a term of ...

    This would apply where, for example, the new tenant runs up rent arrears. Survey of case law UK LaSalle, Inc. v. Lawless, 618 A. 2d 447 - Pa: Superior Court 1992 Royal Ins. Co.(UK) Ltd. v. Ideal Mut. Ins. Co., 649 F.

  1. Land Law Problem Question; Adverse Possession, Easements, Covenants and Overriding Interests.

    However, the letter from Manor Range's previous owner to the previous owner of Andrea's estate would need to be created by deed in order for it to take effect at law. To satisfy this, the letter would need to clearly state it was intended to be a deed, be signed

  2. The rules governing the creation of implied easements are in need of reform. Discuss ...

    It was held that the right was too extensive to be an easement, as the workman was claiming, in effect, "a possession of the servient tenement, if necessary to the exclusion of the owner".1 The characteristics of an easement were set out in Re Ellenborough Park (1955).

  1. Proprietary Estoppel - Asserting a right or preventing a fact? It will be ...

    on it, and did act on it to his detriment.13 Again, like promissory estoppel there is a requirement of conduct and reliance.14 Additionally, this form of estoppel cannot bring about a cause of action; it can only estop A from asserting a fact or right against B.

  2. Registration of land

    1925 but however, still provides for a 'crack' in the mirror principle. However, the inclusion of 'overriding interest' in both the LRA is not a mistake. Even though the purpose of registration is to ensure the register is clear like a mirror, it doesn't discourage you or intend for the purchasers to not conduct a physical inspection of the property.

  1. Land law problem question - access

    the his interest and he failed to disclose his interest, interest will not override, if it is reasonable to have disclosed. If he can satisfy the requirement under Sch 3 para 2, he is likely to have an overriding interest. Livesyâs right is capable of being overreached (s2 LPA 1925[126]).

  2. Land Law Case. In advising Mary, it must be noted what rights she has ...

    years as is ruled in Prescriptions Act 1832 S.2 and this can be seen in the case of âReilly v Orangeâ (1955), by maintaining exclusive use is ensured, using it continuously during this period and doing this in a manner which makes it clear to the current owner.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work