• 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...


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

    to exist as a distinct doctrine, that is to say it was no longer 'an independent means by which B can acquire a right against A'. Instead, the doctrine consists of 'an application to particular facts of estoppel by representation or of promissory estoppel.39 It could be said however, that

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

    Today all settlements take effect as trusts for land under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TLATA), although some problems still exist. You need to understand the problems under the old law so that you will be able to appreciate the major changes introduced by TLATA.

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

    The reality is that Terry and Tina were in fact paying the rent jointly once a month. The test laid out in AG Securities v Vaughan14 provided that there needs to be four unities present: the unity of possession, interest, title and time.

  2. Explain and critically analyse the process under the Land Registration Act 2002 for: ...

    In this case, the consent of the registered proprietor is not required. But as per the latest Act, the proprietor is notified about the unilateral notice before the actual dealing takes place.6 So the proprietor also has the opportunity to object in case he does not give his consent.

  1. Concept of proprietary estoppel - it could be said that the courts are restrictive ...

    if these circumstance arise again the judgement should not be the same. The other scenario is where one person actively encourages another to believe he will have a right or interest to their land and that other person believes on that promise as in Plimmer v The Mayor of Wellington8

  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. 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 ...

    with the mortgage but because a contract that is to be used as an engine of oppression will not be allowed in public policy. For example in ?Cityland and Property (Holdings) Ltd v Dabrah? (1968). The court varied the terms of the mortgage, as they were unconscionable, the interest was

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