Peacock and another v Custins and another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date14 November 2000
Date14 November 2000
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
23 cases
  • Macepark (Whittlebury) Ltd v Jeffrey Ian Sargeant and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 8 June 2004
    ...which, amongst other things, consider the question of whether and to what extent there is a doctrine of "ancillary" use. 31 In Peacock v Custins [2002] 1 WLR 1815 the Court of Appeal dealt with an express grant of a right of way "in connection with the use and enjoyment of" the dominant la......
  • EDF Energy Netwroks Plc v BOH Ltd & Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
  • Massey v Boulden
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 14 November 2002
    ...submits, is the effect of the governing authorities, most notably Harris v Flower (1904) 74 LJCt 127, Graham v Philcox [1984] 1 QB 747, Peacock v Custins [2001] EGLR 87 and Das v Linden Mews Limited [2002] EWCA Civ 590. 38 Mr Harrison argues the contrary. His wider submission is that there ......
  • Wall v Collins and another
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 5 May 2010
    ...some usual offices on [Blackacre] connected with the buildings on [Whiteacre].” 52 He also referred to the judgment of Schiemann LJ in Peacock v Custins [2002] 1 WLR 1815, 1824 (in which the court refused to allow a way granted for agricultural use of 15 acres, to be used for an additional ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Particular Easements and Examples of Analogous Remedies of Relevance to Development
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Restrictions on the use of land Part I. Easements and profits à prendre
    • 30 August 2016
    ...only one and a half inches clearance on each side. The road itself 1 (1878) 8 Ch 415 at 420, per Jessel MR. See also Peacock v Custins [2002] 1 WLR 1815 at [30], per Schiemann LJ, who stated, ‘We, of course, accept … that the physical characteristics of the area at the time of the grant con......

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