Class notes

Unit 7 - Land Law - Engage/Prep Taks - Solved

0 purchase

Course
Land law

Institution
University Of Law (ULaw)

I scored a 90 on my SBAQs so I had a pretty strong grasp of the concepts on Land Law. About this doc: Key words in the answers: Implied easements. Union Lighterage v London Graving Dock Company. Wong v Beaumont Property Trust Ltd. Wheeldon v Burrows. Doctrine of Lost modern Grant. Simmons v D...

[Show more]

Preview 1 out of 4 pages

View example

Uploaded on October 14, 2024
Number of pages 4
Written in 2023/2024
Type Class notes
Professor(s) Lisa
Contains Unit 7

pgdl
ma law
land law
easements
solved
engage task

Institution
University of Law (ULaw)
Education Unknown
Course
Land law

$3.88

Also available in package deal from $27.21

Add to cart

Add to wishlist

100% satisfaction guarantee
Immediately available after payment
Both online and in PDF
No strings attached

Also available in package deal (1)

Land Law Engage Tasks - SOLVED

$ 34.88 $ 27.21

2x sold

9 items

1. Class notes - Unit 1 - land law - engage/prep taks - solved
2. Class notes - Unit 2 - land law - engage/prep taks - solved
3. Class notes - Unit 3- land law - engage/prep taks - solved
4. Class notes - Unit 4 - land law - engage/prep taks - solved
5. Class notes - Unit 5 - land law - engage/prep taks - solved
6. Class notes - Unit 6 - land law - engage/prep taks - solved
7. Class notes - Unit 7 - land law - engage/prep taks - solved
8. Class notes - Unit 7 - land law - et 3
9. Class notes - Unit 8 - land law - engage/prep taks - solved
Show more

Decide whether, and explain why, the statements which follow this scenario are true
or false.

Suzie was the owner of the registered freehold title to a cottage with surrounding land. In
1999 she sold part of her land to Basil who immediately built a house on the land. From
January 2000 onwards, rather than using the lane alongside the properties to reach the local
village, Basil started to take a shortcut over Suzie’s retained land. This short cut soon
became a worn path. Before the sale Suzie, a recluse, had never walked into the village
using this route.

In January 2023 Suzie sold the cottage and remaining land to Robert who, two weeks ago,
erected a stone wall along the boundary between the two properties in an attempt to block
Basil’s path.

(a) Basil cannot claim an implied easement of necessity to cross the neighbouring land.

Implied easements may be created, without any formality, on a sale of part. They
are deemed legal easements, as they are implied into the deed used to transfer
the legal estate on the sale of part.
For a seller, an easement of strict necessity and common intention can be
impliedly reserved (held back) out of the land being sold, for the benefit of the
land the seller is retaining. A buyer on the other hand will have the right to
exercise, over the land retained by the seller easements of strict necessity,
common intention, the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows and under s 62 of the LPA.
An easement of strict necessity arises where, without it, no use can be made of
the land. “In my opinion, an easement of necessity means an easement without
which the property retained cannot be used at all, and not merely necessary to
the reasonable enjoyment of the property.” (Union Lighterage v London Graving
Dock Company)
High Threshold: A claim for an easement of necessity would, therefore, be
defeated if there was an alternative means of access, even if that alternative
access was dangerous. An easement of necessity can only be used for those
purposes for which the dominant tenement was being used at the necessity
arose, ie at the date of the grant/transfer (London Corporation v Riggs).
Strict necessity is unlikely to apply as there would be alternative methods of
drainage and sewerage (such as cess pits/soak-aways) and so the land could be
used without the easement. However, an easement of common intention may
still be found where strict necessity is not - the use of the drains and the sewers
may have been in the intention of the parties and so common intention could be
available (Wong v Beaumont Property Trust Ltd) - if a common purpose if known
to the parties, the right claimed is needed in order for the common purpose to be
fulfilled.
As the need for drains over the neighbour’s land does not satisfy the high
threshold of an easement of strict necessity, Basil will not have this claim.

(b) Basil can claim an implied easement using Wheeldon v Burrows to cross the land, as both
pieces of land were owned and occupied by Suzie at the time of the sale in 1999 and the

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller prollyreading. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $3.88. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

68175 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 15 years now

Start selling