Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Understanding Easements: Traits & Case Law - Regency Villas v Diamond Resorts, Lecture notes of Property Law

An insightful blog post by lucinda pattison, a teaching fellow for property law, discussing the essential characteristics of easements and recent case law development, specifically the case of regency villas titles ltd v diamond resorts (europe) ltd. The blog post explains the concept of easements, the re ellenborough park criteria, and how the courts recognize and accommodate different types of easements. It also covers the case of regency villas titles ltd v diamond resorts (europe) ltd, which extended the recognition of easements to purely recreational and sporting rights.

Typology: Lecture notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/27/2022

virtualplayer
virtualplayer 🇬🇧

4.2

(11)

84 documents

1 / 4

Toggle sidebar

Related documents


Partial preview of the text

Download Understanding Easements: Traits & Case Law - Regency Villas v Diamond Resorts and more Lecture notes Property Law in PDF only on Docsity! April 2019 Page 1 of 4 Easements: the essential characteristics and the decision in Regency Villas Titles Ltd and others v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd and others Lucinda Pattison, Teaching Fellow for Property law Welcome to your property law blog. My name is Lucinda Pattison and I'm a teaching fellow on the Property Law module. What I'm going to be talking to you about today is easements and in particular, recent case law development as to the type of easement that has been recognized by the courts. As part of this, I'm going to talk to you about the essential characteristics that are needed for an easement just to remind you of what those are. Before I get into that, a reminder of what an actual easement is. It is a right one landowner enjoys over land adjacent to their own which they don't actually own. For example a right of way over a neighboring piece of land. If the right is recognized as having the characteristics of an easement and that comes from the case of Re Ellenborough Park and is created by one of the ways that it recognized, then you do have an easement. You have this right. Now before I get into the Re Ellenborough Park criteria, just some reminders on the terminology that is used relating to easements. The first one is "dominant tenement." This just means benefited land. This is the land that has the benefits of the right. So a right to walk over the neighboring land. We then got the "servient tenement" which means burdened land. This is the land that has the burden of the right. It is the land that is actually walked over by the neighbor. What is an easement then? Well, we don't have a definitive list of easements. Instead, what we look out for, are four characteristics that were set out by the Court of Appeal in the 1956 case of Re Ellenborough Park. I'm going to take you through those now because they are relevant to the recent case of law development. The first characteristic then is that you need a dominant tenement and a servient tenement. The rights itself has to be actually attached to land and we need those two identifiable pieces of land. We must have a recognizable and identifiable piece of land that benefits from the easement and likewise, we must have a recognizable and identifiable piece of land that is burdened with it. For further case law discussion on this point, see the case of London and Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd. Second of all then is that the easement must accommodate the dominant tenement. In other words, the right cannot be a personal advantage for the landowner now, in other words, not connected to the land. Whatever the easement is, it actually has to benefit whoever owns that piece of land now and in the future. In that way, it is not personal. What you're looking for is that the right increases the normal enjoyment of the land. There are contrasting cases on this point but a well-known one and one that is often used to illustrate the point is the case of Hill v Tupper. Part of being able to accommodate the dominant tenement means that the dominant tenement and servient tenement must be sufficiently proximate to each other. In other words, you can't be talking about one of the pieces of land being for example in Newcastle and the other piece of land being in Cornwall, it just doesn't work. A relevant case to consider on that point is the case of Pugh v Savage. Easements Page 2 of 4 The third criteria then is that the dominant tenement and servient tenement must be owned or occupied by different people. A very simple reason for this, you don't and cannot have an easement over your own land. It is your land, you can walk all over it whenever you want to. You don't need to be given a right to do so. What we need is either completely separate ownership of the two pieces of land at the time the easement is created or separate occupation. For example, you can have a freeholder in one part and a tenant in the other. We do have the concepts of quasi easements for the purposes of creation under the rule of Wheeldon v Burrows. That is not something we're getting into in this particular blog. Finally, the easements must be capable of forming the subject matter of a grant. Now there's several parts to this actual final point. First one being that we need a capable grantor and a capable grantee. Secondly, the right must be sufficiently definite. The nature and extent of it must be certain. Those are your four Re Ellenborough Park criteria. But to have an easement, there are also some additional criteria that need to be satisfied. First, of, you cannot require the servient tenement owner to actually take any action in relation to this easement. There cannot be a positive obligation on them to actually do anything. Second of all, the rights must be exercisable as of right. In other words, no permission from the servient tenement owner is needed in order to exercise the right. Also, the right that we're talking about cannot give exclusive possession of the servient tenement to the dominant tenement. In other words, we cannot stop the servient tenement owner from actually being able to use their own land. There've been some very interesting cases on this point in relation to parking and also storage as well as actually allowing people to park on land amounts to giving them exclusive possession. The following thing is that the rights must be within the general nature of rights that are capable of existing as easements. In other words, it must be a right that the court is prepared to recognize. It has been said that the list of easements is never closed. However, it's very unlikely that the court would now recognize any new negative easements. In other words, an easement that would prevent a servient tenement owner from being able to use their land in some way. New positive easements, however, will be recognized. This is allowing a dominant tenement the right to do something on the servient tenement land and this is in particular, would have been recognized recently. We've added a new type of easement. There are numerous cases on those final points but as I said, this blog is going to be focusing really on that final point about the fact that the courts will now recognize different types of easements. This has come from The Supreme Court case of Regency Villas Title Ltd v Diamond Resorts Europe Ltd. This was decided by The Supreme Court in November 2018. Just some background to the case, first of all, here the appellants owned a mansion and an estate. The respondents owned timeshare villas built on land within that estate. There was a transfer in 1981 which granted the timeshare owners the right to use the leisure facilities on the estate and also in the mansion. There was originally an outdoor pool, actually on the estate but that was subsequently filled in a few years later and instead, a new indoor pool was built within the mansion itself. A bit of further background to this is that the original grantor of the rights actually covenanted to maintain the leisure facilities but this wasn't binding on successes in title so the appellants were not actually obliged to pay for the upkeep and maintenance of those facilities. Subsequently, the facilities fell into disrepair and the respondents made voluntary payments towards their upkeep. The respondents required a declaration from the court that they were entitled by way of an easement to the free use of the facilities. The court of appeal held that they did have an easement in respect to the facilities but not in relation to the pool in the mansion because it would have subsequently been built. The appellants appealed on the basis that it could not be an easement onto grounds. First of all, that the rights did not accommodate the respondents' dominant tenement. Secondly that it was not capable of forming the subject matter of a grant.