1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
LRA Profit a prendre; right to exercise common of pasture; doctrine of Lost Modern Grant; Prescription Act 1832; Land Registration Act 2002, ss. 33, 34, 40, 65, sch 4, para. 5(b) or (c); Commons Registration Act . .
LRA Easements and Profits A Prendre – Applicants held to have acquired a right of way by lost modern grant and under the Prescription Act 1832, the user having been acquiesced in at latest from 1984, following . .
LRA Easements and Profits A Prendre – KEYWORDS: Right of way over track by prescription at common law – user as of right; doctrine of Lost Modern Grant – Prescription Act 1832 ss.2, 4 – whether reference to the . .
LRA Right of way over roadside verge; Prescription Act 1832; doctrine of Lost Modern Grant; extent of right of way acquired by user; does right of way extend to vehicular use; is right of way limited to . .
The tenant had affixed a sign to the premises with the landlord’s consent. The new landlord said that any licence was revocable. The judge had held that the lease had specifically granted a right to exhibit the signs. Held: The landlord’s appeal was dismissed. The right to maintain the signs was in the demise of … Continue reading William Hill (Southern) Limited v Cabras: CA 1986
The parties were tenants of the same landlord, the Grosvenor Estate in adjoining premises at Balfour Mews in Westminster. The plaintiff claimed for an infringement of his right of light from ancient windows by his neighbour, and also that the height of the new building was such as to prevent the proper escape of smoke … Continue reading Willoughby v Eckstein: ChD 1936
When setting out to establish that a piece of land has become a village green with rights of common, the tests are similar to those used in the law of prescription and adverse possession. Accordingly, there is no need to establish a belief in those using the rights asserted beyond that the use is as … Continue reading Regina v Oxfordshire County Council and Another, Ex Parte Sunningwell Parish Council: HL 25 Jun 1999
The lease contained a reservation which would allow the freeholder to build upon his neighbouring land whether or not it obstructed any rights of light in the demised premises. Held: The reservation was effective to prevent a right of being acquired by the tenant by prescription.Eve J said: ‘The question is whether the words I … Continue reading Foster v Lyons and Co: 1927
The fact that land had been requisitioned by the Ministry of Agriculture between 1941 and 1960 and the 20-odd years’ user relied on as having created the rights had preceded 1941 was a bar to a prescriptive claim to grazing rights under the Prescription Act 1832 but not at common law. Discussing Angus v Dalton, … Continue reading Tehidy Minerals Ltd v Norman: CA 1971
The provisions of the Prescription Act 1832 do not apply to profits a prendre in gross. Citations: (1865) 19 CBNS 687 Statutes: Prescription Act 1832 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Barton v The Church Commissioners for England ChD 15-Dec-2008 The commissioners claimed a right by prescription to all fish to be taken … Continue reading Shuttleworth v Le Fleming: 1865
A stone tablet had been set into the wall of a building in 1816. I was inscribed ‘this stone is placed by J to perpetuate R’s right to build within nine inches of this and any other building.’ R was selling part of his land (adjoining the plaque) to J. A buidling was erected next … Continue reading Ruscoe v Grounsell: CA 1903
In 1864 Sir Humphrey de Trafford granted a 999 year lease of a dwelling house ‘with all rights and appurtenances, legal, used, or reputed, to the said plot of land, except rights, if any, restricting the free use of any adjoining land or the conversion or appropriation at any time thereafter of such land for … Continue reading Mitchell v Cantrill: CA 1887
A claim for a presumption of a lost modern grant must include an assertion that the enjoyment of the carriageway was continuous or uninterrupted. Lindley LJ said: ‘It is difficult, if not impossible, to enunciate a principle which will reconcile all the decisions, and still more all the dicta to be found in them; the … Continue reading Hollins v Verney: CA 1884
The plaintiff claimed a profit a prendre saying had been acquired under s.1 of the 1832 Act, by use for 30 years, the applicable period in relation to a profit a prendre. The evidence was that the right in question, to pasture cattle on a common, had not been exercised in two years out of … Continue reading Carr v Foster: 1842
At trial, the use of a track across a neighbouring farm for the driving of sheep was found to be originally by oral permission, and that although the permission was not expressly renewed ‘there was a tacit understanding that did not need to be expressed overtly between neighbours, then on good terms’ that when the … Continue reading Jones v Price and Morgan: CA 16 Jan 1992
Houses were built next to a common. Over many years the owners had driven over the common. The landowners appealed a decision that they could not acquire a right of way by prescription over the common because such use had been unlawful as a criminal offence under section 193 of the Law of Property Act … Continue reading Bakewell Management Limited v Brandwood and others: HL 1 Apr 2004
Kerr LJ considered the exercise of an easement over land (a sweep of a curve over a driveway) by force, saying: ‘In my view, what these authorities show is that there may be ‘vi’ – a forceful exercise of the user – in contrast to a user as of right once there is knowledge on … Continue reading Newnham v Willison: CA 1987
A dispute between neighbours was settled by a deed with the following clause: ‘IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND DECLARED that notwithstanding that the Building Owners have placed windows in that part of their new buildings which overlook the premises occupied by the adjoining owner no right or easement of light or air exists in respect … Continue reading Marlborough (West End) Ltd v Wilks Head and Eve: ChD 20 Dec 1996
The claimants asserted a right of light either by prescription or under lost modern grant. The defendants argued that alterations in the windows arrangements meant that any prescription period was restarted. Held: ‘the Defendant is not correct to submit that any significant alteration in a window during the running of the 20 year period, means … Continue reading CGIS City Plaza Shares 1 Ltd and Another v Britel Fund Trustees Ltd: ChD 13 Jun 2012
LRA Easements of right of way and right to park; Doctrine of Lost Modern Grant, Prescription Act 1832 ss. 2, 4; requirement for a suit or action; deviation of a right of way; section 15(1) of the Limitation Act 1980; permissive use;  EWLandRA 2012 – 0600 Bailii Prescription Act 1832 2 4, Limitation Act … Continue reading Russo and Others v Clarke and Another (Easements and Profits A Prendre : Easements of Parking): LRA 3 Feb 2014
The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. The defendants argued that the properties were in any event noisy because of proximity to RAF Mildenhall. … Continue reading Lawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others: QBD 4 Mar 2011
The defendant asserted that it had acquired the right to use a private access road over the claimant’s land. There had been a licence granted under which an earlier owner had been said to have used the land. The defendant claimed under the 1832 Act or by lost modern grant. Held: The earlier cases on … Continue reading London Tara Hotel Ltd v Kensington Close Hotel Ltd: ChD 1 Nov 2010
The party claiming a right of way through the yard of a neighbouring inn, and her predecessors in title, had for well over 40 years used the inn yard (the only means of access with carts and horses to her premises) and had paid the annual sum of 15 shillings to the innkeeper. The most … Continue reading Gardner v Hodgson’s Kingston Brewery Co: HL 1903
LRA EASEMENT – right of way – prescription – Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act 1871 ss. 8 and 35 – Prescription Act 1832, ss. 2 and 3 – true construction of the word ‘dispose’ – definition of ‘the commons’ – whether the Respondents are capable grantors – doctrine of Lost Modern Grant.  EWLandRA 2005 … Continue reading Housden and Another Housden v Conservators of Wimbledon and Putney Commons (Easements): LRA 21 Aug 2006
The appellants owned land through which flowed the river Derwent. Attempts were to be made to restore the river to navigability. The appellants denied that any public rights existed over the river. Held: The 1932 Act could only give rise to a right of way over a feature of the land; this could not include … Continue reading Attorney-General (ex relatione Yorkshire Derwent Trust Ltd) v Brotherton: HL 5 Dec 1991
The commissioners claimed a right by prescription to all fish to be taken in a stretch of the River Wye. The claimant was to moor a barge on the river. Held: The court explained the nature and legal status of fisheries in the law going back to 1193. In this case, the Commissioners had established, … Continue reading Barton v The Church Commissioners for England: ChD 15 Dec 2008
The claimants sought to register a right of way over the common by virtue of use over forty years. The defendants denied that they were able to grant an easement inder the 1871 Act, and that therefore no claim could be laid under prescription. Held: Though the 1871 Act contained a wide provision against alienation, … Continue reading Housden and Another v The Conservators of Wimbledon and Putney Commons: CA 18 Mar 2008
The defendant proposed an unmanned barrier across a private right of way. Many residents agreed, but the claimants did not. They operated schools requiring access and said that the gates would substantially interfere with their right of way. The council said that it had the required power under the 1933 Act. There had previously been … Continue reading Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary Ltd and others v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames: ChD 14 Mar 2008
An easement, exercised for the benefit of the dominant estate, is not invalid merely because from the very nature of the right its exercise by the dominant estate confers some benefit upon other tenements.
The corporation of Godmanchester as . .
The inhabitants of Carlisle claimed a custom of holding horse races in May over land at Kingsmoor. The landowner’s counsel protested that the fields were arable land.
Held: Martin B: ‘It must be assumed that the custom has existed since the . .
LRA Easements and Profits A Prendre – Acquisition of easement by prescription; easement on foot over existing right of way granted by deed; identification of the dominant tenement; whether user as of right; . .
The claimants asserted a right of way over the defendants’ land, saying one had been impliedly reserved on the severance of the two plots by conveyance in 1920, and alternately obtained by prescription.
Held: The claim failed. . .
The parties owned adjoining premises. The plaintiffs sought relief, alledging that their rights of way had been infringed. The defendant had erected fences and gates across a service road.
Held: Where a party erected a fence obstructing a . .
A private right of way was claimed under the 1832 Act by virtue of use to remove wood from an adjoining close. . .
The plaintiff landowner had a copper mine. The water from the mine, which had been contaminated with metallic substances discharged over a neighbour’s land. He sought to establish a right to do so by prescription. The right was claimed over land . .
The case asked whether vehicular user of a public footpath in breach of section 34(1) of the 1988 Act could lead to the acquisition by prescription of a public right of way.
Held: Hanning barred a claim to the easement under section 2 of the . .
LRA The Applicant proved that for over 20 years between 1985 and 2008, about 12 times a year, he had gone on foot across the edge of a field between the public highway and the back of his house to bring logs and . .
LRA Right of way by prescription established on facts under the doctrine of lost modern grant. No absolute rule that non-user for over a year defeats a claim based on 20 years user.
Hollins v Verney (1884) . .
The claimant had agreed with a developer in 1999 to allow a development which would have a minor affect on his light. The developer later extended the development, to increase the interference with the right to light, relying on the earlier . .
A right to light is an unusual form of easement in the sense that it exists only with regard to the access to light to defined apertures in a building (as opposed to the dominant land generally) and its acquisition depends on actual enjoyment, not . .
The court was asked whether the grant of a lease including a clause reserving: ‘All rights to the access of light or air from the said adjoining property known as Victoria House and Graham House to any of the windows of the demised property.’ . .
Appeal against adjudicator’s decision to refuse to order registration of benefit of a private right of way over an access way. . .
Tenants occupied land next to land which was to be developed after compulsory acquisition. The tenants and the landlords asserted a right of light over the land, and sought an injunction to prevent the development. The developer denied that any . .
cw Easement – Prescription – Right to light – Greenhouse – Claim for sufficient light to cultivate plants – Whether specially high amount of light – Whether right to extraordinary amount of light capable of being . .
House owners had used vehicular access across a common to get to their houses for many years. The commons owner required them to purchase the right, and they replied that they had acquired the right by lost modern grant and/or by prescription.
The claimants were underlessees of an office building. The offices had enjoyed a right of light for over a hundred years, and the freehold had acquired an easement of light by lost modern grant. The roadway having been closed, the defendant head . .
The parties were neighbours. T got planning permission in 1977 to build a two storey extension. D, the plaintiff, knew of the plan and that it would interrupt the light to his bungalow. Over the years, the plan was implemented in stages, and in . .
The plaintiff said that his right to light enjoyed by certain windows had been unlawfully obstructed by the building of a wall. The defendant said that the plaintiff’s acquisition of the right by prescription had been interrupted by his practice of . .
Land had been used as a park for many years. The council land owner refused to register it as a common, saying that by maintaining the park it had indicated that the use was by consent and licence, and that prescription did not apply. Held: Qualifying user having been found, there was nothing in the … Continue reading Regina v City of Sunderland ex parte Beresford: HL 13 Nov 2003
The claimants sought to have land belonging to the council registered as a village green to prevent it being developed. They said that it had for more than twenty years been used by the community for various sports. The council replied that it had managed a golf course on the land without objection from the … Continue reading Lewis, Regina (on The Application of) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Another: SC 3 Mar 2010
The plaintiff was able to establish a right of way by prescription despite his personal belief that he had such a right by grant. Ralph Gibson LJ said: ‘For mistake as to the origin of the right asserted by the user to be relevant, it seems to me that it must be such as to … Continue reading Bridle v Ruby: CA 1989
The court considered whether the claimant had established a profit a prendre against the defendant neighbour’s land in the form of a right of pasturage, acquired either by lost modern grant or by prescription. Held: The appeal succeeded, but the case was remitted for retrial. Four conditions must be complied with for there to be … Continue reading Polo Woods Foundation v Shelton-Agar and Another: ChD 17 Jun 2009
A farm’s only vehicular access was over land which was only useable occasionally when dry. The defendants laid a stone track to facilitate constant access. At first instance it was held that the earlier use had been too intermittent to allow a prescriptive right, and the use had been by consent. Held: The use was … Continue reading Mills and Another v Silver and others: CA 6 Jul 1990
The courts below had concluded that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff’s right to light, and had awarded an injunction. Held: the appeal succeeded. The House set out the requirements for establishing the existence of a right to light. For an obstruction of ancient lights, the obstruction must be substantial, enough to render the occupation … Continue reading Colls v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd: HL 2 May 1904
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act. Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any interference with a fertilised egg, if it leads to the loss of the egg, involves the … Continue reading Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others: Admn 18 Apr 2002
The landowner denied that a public right of way had been created over his land. Under the 1932 Act, 20 years user expiring at any time, even before the Act came into force, was capable of giving rise to a deemed dedication of a public highway under it and a period of user ending in … Continue reading Fairey v Southampton City Council: CA 1956
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance. Held: The neighbour’s appeal succeeded. C, but not the freeholder were liable in nuisance. In the … Continue reading Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another: SC 26 Feb 2014
The court heard preliminary applications in a case asserting acquisition of land by adverse possession, the land being parts of the foreshore of the Severn Estuary.
Held: A person may acquire title to part of the bed of a tidal river by . .
Conviction for publishing an obscene libel (abortion manual) overturned. . .
Charles Bradlaugh and Mrs Annie Besant were prosecuted for publishing a treatise on contraceptive methods entitled the Fruits of Philosophy which had originally been published in the United States of America in 1832. They were prosecuted for . .
Dr Marie Stopes failed in her attempt to reverse the verdict against her in libel proceedings she had brought in relation to a book which criticised what it called her ‘monstrous campaign of birth control’ and opined, looking back to the events of . .
The claimant sought a declaration that the caution registered by the defendant should be vacated. The defendant asserted acquisition by prescription either of an easement or of the land itself. They had parked vehicles on the land.
Held: . .
One exception to the requirement that an easement must be granted by a deed is that if permission to enjoy a right, capable of constituting an easement, is given by the landowner in terms likely to lead, and that do lead, the beneficiary of the . .