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 (Civil Division)
    • 18 Dec 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Cargill v Gotts
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 18 Dec 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 (Civil Division)
    • 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.

  • Kent and Another v Kavanagh and Another
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 02 Mar 2006

    I turn, then, to consider the position where that part of the land in common ownership which is subject to the tenancy (say, plot A) is conveyed to the tenant on enfranchisement under the 1967 Act. What rights of way over the landlord's retained land (plot B) pass to the tenant with the conveyance of the freehold of plot A – in circumstances where the tenant has not required an express grant under section 10(3)(a) of the Act?

See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT