LAND LAW-EASEMENTS-CASES EXAM
QUESTIONS WITH VERIFIED
ANSWERS
Alford v Hannaford 2011 - Answer-Platt approach cited as good law-though in the
case, aquisition was not Implied as there was no evidence of prior use.
Mills v Silver 1991 - Answer-Nec precario prescription element-mere tolerance will
not defeat a claim in prescription.
Hollins v Verney 1884 - Answer-Prescription-must be continuous-3 times in 20 yrs
deemd insufficient
Orme v Lyons 2012 - Answer-20 yrs use of easement established-lost modern grant
assumed.
Oakley v Boston 1976 - Answer-Lost modern grant can only be rebutted by showing
legal impossibility.
Flight v Thomas 1841 - Answer-19 yrs 11 months-counted as 20 yrs without
interruption- less than one year
Walsh v Lonsdale 1882 - Answer-It is the authority for the equitable maxim that
"Equity regards as done that which ought to be done". It created the doctrine of
anticipation, whereby a specifically performable agreement to create or transfer a
property right will be good in equity, even if not finally effective in law.
Holds v Stockton Estates 2001 - Answer-Sch 3 para 2-right of way deemed never to
amount to actual occupation, regardless of frequency of use.
Chaudary v Yavuz 2011 - Answer-Obiter-general possibility of easement amounting
to actual occupation accepted-though in that case rejected-metal staircase
Atwood v Bovis Homes 2001 - Answer-Increased burden on servient tenemant may
lead to the termination of an easement.
Weston v Lawrence Weaver 1961 - Answer-For damages to be awarded there must
be some substantial interference with enjoyment of the easement. A person having a
right of way over land is not entitled to recover damages for physical damage to the
way caused by the excessive user of the way by another dominant owner unless this
substantially interferes with the right to pass and repass. The plaintiff and the
defendants each had rights of way over a private road. The defendants damaged the
road by driving lorries on it, which was an excessive user.
Hair v Gillman 2000 - Answer-Right to park on forecourt taht could accommodate 4
cars-held to be an easement. No exclusive possesion.
QUESTIONS WITH VERIFIED
ANSWERS
Alford v Hannaford 2011 - Answer-Platt approach cited as good law-though in the
case, aquisition was not Implied as there was no evidence of prior use.
Mills v Silver 1991 - Answer-Nec precario prescription element-mere tolerance will
not defeat a claim in prescription.
Hollins v Verney 1884 - Answer-Prescription-must be continuous-3 times in 20 yrs
deemd insufficient
Orme v Lyons 2012 - Answer-20 yrs use of easement established-lost modern grant
assumed.
Oakley v Boston 1976 - Answer-Lost modern grant can only be rebutted by showing
legal impossibility.
Flight v Thomas 1841 - Answer-19 yrs 11 months-counted as 20 yrs without
interruption- less than one year
Walsh v Lonsdale 1882 - Answer-It is the authority for the equitable maxim that
"Equity regards as done that which ought to be done". It created the doctrine of
anticipation, whereby a specifically performable agreement to create or transfer a
property right will be good in equity, even if not finally effective in law.
Holds v Stockton Estates 2001 - Answer-Sch 3 para 2-right of way deemed never to
amount to actual occupation, regardless of frequency of use.
Chaudary v Yavuz 2011 - Answer-Obiter-general possibility of easement amounting
to actual occupation accepted-though in that case rejected-metal staircase
Atwood v Bovis Homes 2001 - Answer-Increased burden on servient tenemant may
lead to the termination of an easement.
Weston v Lawrence Weaver 1961 - Answer-For damages to be awarded there must
be some substantial interference with enjoyment of the easement. A person having a
right of way over land is not entitled to recover damages for physical damage to the
way caused by the excessive user of the way by another dominant owner unless this
substantially interferes with the right to pass and repass. The plaintiff and the
defendants each had rights of way over a private road. The defendants damaged the
road by driving lorries on it, which was an excessive user.
Hair v Gillman 2000 - Answer-Right to park on forecourt taht could accommodate 4
cars-held to be an easement. No exclusive possesion.
