A common right of grazing which was quantified but not related to the ability of the land to sustain it was capable of existing in gross, and was therefore severable entirely from the land to which it related. The severance was no necessary prejudice to the land. Robert Walker LJ doubted ‘whether it is correct to imply that a profit of pasture appurtenant can never in any circumstances be acquired by prescription for a fixed number of animals, but that does not affect the basic point that prescription of a profit appurtenant must be by way of activities which accommodate the land to which it becomes appurtenant.’
Judges:
Robert Walker LJ
Citations:
Times 11-Mar-1999, [1998] EWCA Civ 51
Statutes:
Law of Property Act 1925 187, Commons Registration Act 1965
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Bettison and others v Langton and others HL 17-May-2001
A right to pasture animals on a common had been levant and couchant, and as such was inalienable as a separate asset from the land where the animals were kept. The right was registered under the Act, and was thereby transformed into a right to graze . .
Cited – Polo Woods Foundation v Shelton-Agar and Another ChD 17-Jun-2009
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.143529
