Nonpossessory Interest in UK Law

In this Topic
Leading Cases
  • St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance v Clark (No. 2)
    • Court of Appeal
    • 18 Dic 1974

    It seems to us that this approach is contrary to well-established principle. It is no doubt true that in order to construe an instrument one looks first at the instrument and no doubt one may form a preliminary impression upon such inspection. But it is not until one has considered the instrument and the surrounding circumstances in conjunction that one concludes the process of construction.

  • Re Ellenborough Park; Re Davies, deceased; Powell v Maddison
    • Court of Appeal
    • 15 Nov 1955

    They are (l) There must be a dominant and a servient tenement: (2) an easement must "accommodate" the dominant tenement: (3) dominant and servient owners must be different persons and (4) a right over land cannot amount to an easement unless it is capable of forming the subject matter of a grant.

  • British Railways Board v Glass
    • Court of Appeal
    • 29 Jul 1964

    If there be a radical change in the character of the dominant tenement, then the prescriptive right will not extend to it in that condition. The obvious example is a change of a small doling house to a large hotel, but there has been no change of that character according to the facts found in this case.

  • R v Sunderland City Council, ex parte Beresford
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 14 Nov 2000

    In my judgement, the fact that land is in public ownership is plainly a relevant matter when one is considering what conclusion a reasonable person would draw from the circumstances of user. It is not part of the normal function of a private landowner to provide facilities for the public on the land. Public ownership of the land is plainly a relevant consideration.

  • Cargill v Gotts
    • Court of Appeal
    • 18 Dic 1980

    I conclude that every abstraction of water by the plaintiff from Mill Pond after 30th June 1965 was illegal. It follows, in my judgment, that the plaintiff cannot rely on any abstraction of water carried out after 30th June 1965 in order to establish an easement by prescription. The court will not recognise an easement established by illegal activity. The 1963 Act, however, does not contain any provision which destroys an easement already acquired.

  • McADAMS HOMES Ltd and ROBINSON and Another
    • Court of Appeal
    • 27 Feb 2004

    I should also mention that many of the cases to which we have been referred were concerned with easements arising by prescription, as opposed to easements arising by implication, as in this case. In my judgment, at least in the great majority of cases, there should be little difference in the principles applicable to the two types of case.

  • RHJ Ltd v FT Patten (Holdings) Ltd
    • Chancery Division
    • 13 Jul 2007

    Clauses of the second kind may prevent the acquisition of a right of light by prescription if what they authorise would interfere with light. If, on a fair reading of the clause they do, then it is not necessary, in my judgment, for the clause to use the word “light”. Once the clause has been interpreted, that interpretation will have been “expressly” agreed. A clause in a lease which authorises the landlord to build as he pleases is likely to satisfy the test.

See all results