Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 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 essay...

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)

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.

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 ?? ?? ?? ??

The above preview is unformatted text

Found what you're looking for?

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

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Over 180,000 student essays
  • Every subject and level covered
  • Thousands of essays marked by teachers
  • Over 180,000 essays
    written by students
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to write
    your own great essays

Marked by a teacher

This essay has been marked by one of our great teachers. You can read the full teachers notes when you download the essay.

Peer reviewed

This essay has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay reviewing squad. Read the full review on the essay page.

Peer reviewed

This essay has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay reviewing squad. Read the full review under the essay preview on this page.