• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

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...

Introduction

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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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

    On-going Liabilities Under some circumstances the original tenant may continue to have ongoing liabilities in respect of an assigned lease. For example if the original lease was entered into before the 1st of January 1996, or if guarantees have been given at the time of assignment.

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

    the 'bona fide purchaser' rule as the courts will not protect those who have notice of any encumbrances on their land. However if the courts deemed that Nigel had no notice of the interest then he would become 'equity's darling' and the

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

    shock the conscience of the court, the analysis needs to be looked at again.'23 This judicial approval from Lord Walker is understood to be widespread.24 It was previously thought that the aim of the courts was the enforcement of the promise and consequently the expectation25, rendering proprietary estoppel akin to other forms.

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

    the case of Ackroyd v Smith7 have showed the classification of easements to be closed and limited to only well-recognised types. The third rule in Re Ellenborough states that the dominant and servient tenements must be different people and therefore cannot be owned by the same person as in the case of quasi-easements.

  1. Tenancy case question. The problem faced by Linda is whether or not Terry, Tina ...

    The Court of appeal held that this prevented exclusive possession, therefore preventing a lease. The courts take a different approach to this now with regard to Street, we can finally conclude that Linda's clause is a pretence according to this authority.

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

    Alternatively, the alleged easement may in fact be approaching a claim of ownership of a freehold or leasehold estate in the property if it involves a high degree of exclusive possession or use. In Copeland v Greenhalf (1952), for example, a workman had used a strip of land belonging to another to store motor vehicles.

  1. Land law problem question - access

    [9] Ibid. [10] Victoria Sayles, Concentrate Land Law,189. [11] Law of Property Act 1925, s.1(2)(a); hereinafter referred to as LPA 1925. [12] Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131. [13] Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd [1993] 4 All ER 157. [14] which enjoys the benefit. [15] which is burdened by the exercise of the easement.

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

    Furthermore this right has to be enjoyed at the precise time as the conveyance occurs and that the right is capable of becoming an easement, not purely just having permission granted as was held in the case of âGreen v Ascho Horticulturalist Ltdâ When there is uninterrupted use of land

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