Grigsby v Melville

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtChancery Division
Date1972
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
9 cases
  • Moncrieff v Jamieson and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 17 d3 Outubro d3 2007
    ...D 12 at 26, namely that an easement could not give "exclusive and unrestricted use of a piece of land". Similarly in Grigsby v Melville [1972] 1 WLR 1355, Brightman J intimated that he considered, without having to decide, that an effectively exclusive right to use a cellar for storage cou......
  • Mulvaney v Jackson and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 d3 Julho d3 2002
    ...as would leave the servient owner without any reasonable use of his land if it is to exist as an easement. In Grigsby v Melville & Anr [1972] 1 WLR 1355 Brightman J said at page 1364 that the asserted right to use premises as a store gave, in effect, an exclusive right of user over the whol......
  • Fragrance Realty Pte Ltd v Rangoon Investment Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 28 d4 Março d4 2013
    ...Re [1956] Ch 131 (folld) Fones Christina v Cheong Eng Khoon Roland [2005] 4 SLR (R) 803; [2005] 4 SLR 803 (folld) Grigsby v Melville [1972] 1 WLR 1355 (refd) Lim Hong Seng v East Coast Medicare Centre Pte Ltd [1994] 3 SLR (R) 680; [1995] 2 SLR 685 (folld) Liwen Holdings Pte Ltd v Ng Ker San......
  • William Batchelor v Peter Robert Marlow and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 11 d4 Maio d4 2000
    ...authority in the light of Wright v Macadam which was not cited. For my part, I find helpful guidance in the judgment of Brightman J in Grigsby v Melville17 which concerned an alleged easement of storage —although this part of the judgment is obiter. After reading the headnote of Copeland v ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Pushing the envelope of proprietary interests: the nadir of the numerus clausus principle?
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 39 Nbr. 2, December 2015
    • 1 d2 Dezembro d2 2015
    ...Easement? More Than Just the Name' (2001) 16 Australian Property Law Bulletin 33, 36. (51) [1952] 1 Ch 488. (52) [1949] 2 KB 744. (53) [1972] 1 WLR 1355. (54) (2007) 71 NSWLR (55) Ibid 389 [39] (Santow JA), 420 [207] (Campbell JA). (56) (2008) 37 WAR 498. (57) Ibid 512 [57] (Buss JA). (58) ......

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