The dedication of land as a highway might occur for a limited term as a result of a an estoppel or contract.

Citations:

[1908] 1 Ch 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Portsmouth City Football Club v Sellar Properties (Portsmouth) Limited, Singer and Friedlander Properties Plc ChD 17-Sep-2003
Various contracts were entered into for the sale of land, with compensation being paid in certain circumstances. One contract required a calculation of consideration as a set figure less a sum to be calculated as the cost of acquiring land. The sum . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.186483

A house was sold at auction by a mortgagee ‘subject to any easements.’ It turned out to be subject to an easement in favour of a neighbour entitling her to come and wash her clothes in the kitchen. The vendor’s solicitor had been told that the neighbour claimed such a right but made no inquiries because he ‘was not going to put other people on their guard about mere claims’.
Held: The solicitor’s response was not good enough. The vendor’s solicitor had been put on inquiry and had a duty to investigate the claim further. The court dismissed the vendor’s action for specific performance, and ordered the return of the deposit.

Judges:

Vice-Chancellor Bacon

Citations:

(1883) 25 ChD 357

Cited by:

Cited – William Sindall Plc v Cambridgeshire County Council CA 21-May-1993
Land was bought for development, but the purchaser later discovered a sewage pipe which very substantially limited its development potential. The existence of the pipe had not been disclosed on the sale, being unknown to the seller.
Held: . .
Cited – Area Estates Ltd v Weir CA 20-Jul-2010
The parties contracted for the sale and purchase of land with vacant possession. It was subject to a lease which the seller said had been surrendered, and it refused to accept any requisitions of objections. After exchange it appeared that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185664

Lawrence J said: ‘The rule about ditching is this. No man, making a ditch, can cut into his neighbour’s soil, but usually he cuts it to the very extremity of his own land: he is of course bound to throw the soil which he digs out, upon his own land; and often, if he likes it, he plants a hedge on the top of it.’

Judges:

Lawrence J

Citations:

[1810] 3 Taunt 137, [1810] EngR 416, (1810) 128 ER 54

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – The Earl of Craven v Pridmore and others CA 1902
The well established presumption that the boundary of plots of land separated by a hedge and ditch, that the boundary is the hedge on the far side of the ditch is a rebuttable presumption. The question was ‘how far the presumption had been displaced . .
Cited – Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley CA 12-Nov-1997
Where adjoining fields are separated by a hedge and a ditch, who owns the ditch?
Held: The old presumption as to the location of a boundary based on the layout of hedges and ditches is irrelevant where the conveyance was by reference to an OS . .
Cited – Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley HL 24-Mar-1999
The parties disputed ownership of a strip of land between a garden and a farm. The land was registered. There was a hedge and a ditch along the disputed boundary, it had been conceded in the Court of Appeal that a conveyance of land on the hedge . .
Cited – Parmar and Others v Upton CA 22-Jul-2015
The parties disputed the application of the hedge and ditch rule in settling their boundary. The appellant wished to have reliance placed upon evidence only discovered after trial.
Held: The appeal failed. The Judge was, notwithstanding the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183677

The court described as an occupier’s duty towards his invitees: ‘And, with respect to such a visitor at least, we consider it settled law, that he, using reasonable care on his part for his own safety, is entitled to expect that the occupier shall on his part use reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual danger, which he knows or ought to know; and that, where there is evidence of neglect, the question whether such reasonable care has been taken, by notice, lighting, guarding, or otherwise, and whether there was contributory negligence in the sufferer, must be determined by a jury as a matter of fact.’ and ‘We consider it sound law that such visitor, using reasonable care on his part for his own safety, is entitled to expect that the occupier shall, on his part, use reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual danger which he knows, or ought to know, and which the other party does not know.’

Judges:

Willes J

Citations:

(1866) LR 1 CP 27

Cited by:

Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182882

The court considered at what point a drain became a sewer: ‘The general rule, as I understand, is, that where a drain receives the sewage of two or more houses it is a sewer; where it receives the sewage of one house only it may still remain a drain, though not necessarily, because it may be a sewer whether it takes the sewage of one house only or no house at all. A main sewer may be laid down by the local authority in a new street where no houses are built, but where it is intended houses shall be built. Subsequently, the buildings may be commenced at the lower end of the street, and when the drains of one house are connected with the main sewer the connecting pipes will be drains and not sewers, but the sewer itself will no less continue to be a sewer, although it receives only the drainage of that one house. And, consequently, a sewer without a drain at all will be a sewer.’

Judges:

Cave J, Wills J

Citations:

[1896] 60 JP 490

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Bromley v Morritt CA 21-Jun-1999
The defendants appealed against orders relating to the construction of a sewage pipe through their garden under powers given under the Act. The defendant had later blocked the pipe and the authority sought to recover the costs of repair. He claimed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182284

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 1925.
Held: The landowner’s appeal was allowed. The case of Hanning was to be overruled. The issue of lawful authority had been equated with the rights of the landowners to permit access, but the land was already subject to the commoners rights under the 1836 Act. ‘if an easement over land can be lawfully granted by the landowner the easement can be acquired either by prescription under section 2 of the 1832 Act or by the fiction of lost modern grant whether the use relied on is illegal in the criminal sense or merely in the tortious sense. I can see no valid reason of public policy to bar that acquisition.’ While lost modern grant could not be presumed where an actual grant by the land owner would have been unlawful, that principle did not apply where it would have been lawful for the land owner to make such a grant and where such grant would have removed the criminality of the user.

Judges:

Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Bingham Of Cornhill, Lord Hope Of Craighead, Lord Scott Of Foscote, Lord Walker Of Gestingthorpe

Citations:

[2004] UKHL 14, Times 02-Apr-2004, [2004] 2 WLR 955, [2004] 2 P and CR DG6, [2004] 15 EGCS 104, [2004] 2 All ER 305, [2004] RTR 26, [2004] 20 EG 168, [2004] 2 AC 519, [2004] NPC 53

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 193(4), Prescription Act 1832 2, Commons Act 1876 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Overruled – Hanning and Others v Top Deck Travel Group Ltd CA 9-Jun-1993
The owner of a common appealed a finding that the neighbouring land owner had acquired by prescription a right of way across the common to use a track for commercial vehicles (buses) to get to the property (the bus depot).
Held: An easement . .
Reversed on Appeal – Roland Brandwood and others v Bakewell Management Ltd CA 30-Jan-2003
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.
Cited – Regina v Oxfordshire County Council and Another, Ex Parte Sunningwell Parish Council HL 25-Jun-1999
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 . .
Cited – Massey and Another v Boulden and Another CA 14-Nov-2002
The claimants said they had acquired a right of way by vehicle over land, a village green, having driven over it for more than forty years. It was responded that the act of driving over the land other than on a track had been an unlawful act, and as . .
Cited – Bryant v Foot 1867
It is to be presumed from a period of 20 years’ user, and the lack of evidence inconsistent with there having been immemorial user or a lost modern grant, that a right which was within grant has been established. The apparent right should lie in . .
Cited – Davis v Whitby CA 1974
The court discussed the need for some system of acquisition of right by user.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘the long user as of right should by our law be given a lawful origin if that can be done.’
Stamp LJ said: ‘if long enjoyment of a right . .
Cited – Tehidy Minerals Ltd v Norman CA 1971
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 . .
Cited – Neaverson v Peterborough Rural District Council ChD 1902
The 1812 Act provided for the draining, enclosing and improving of a fen which was common land. Under the Act the grass growing on various roadways was vested in the surveyor of highways, who had power to let it for the pasturage of ‘sound and . .
Cited – Hulley v Silversprings Bleaching and Dyeing Co Ltd ChD 1992
A lower riparian owner sued the Silversprings company for nuisance.
Held: The fact that the plaintiff’s predecessors had acquiesced in pollution for twenty years was no defence, because the plaintiff was not the only person affected by the . .
Cited – George Legge and Son Ltd v Wenlock Corporation HL 1938
The question was whether the status of a natural stream could be changed to that of a sewer by the unlawful discharge for a long period of sewage into the stream. The claimant asserted that a right by way of an easement could be acquired despite the . .
Cited – Airdrie Magistrates v Lanark County Council 1910
Lord Loreburn LC said: ‘But what the appellants say is this: Permit us to prove that these burns are sewers, and if we can prove that they are sewers, surely it cannot be an offence to pour sewage matter into the sewers. My Lords, that is merely . .
Cited – Glamorgan County Council v Carter QBD 1962
A caravan owner appealed against an enforcement notice on the basis that no planning permission was required because the parking of caravans was the purpose for which the land had been last used.
Held: Factually that was correct. Prima facie . .
Cited – Cargill v Gotts CA 1981
The Act prohibited abstraction of water from a river without a licence from the Water Authority. The defendant had no such licence, but asserted that having extracted water over many years from the mill pond, he had acquired the right to do so: ‘The . .
Cited – Robinson v Adair QBD 2-Mar-1995
The Truro Crown Court had allowed Mr Adair’s appeal against his conviction for obstructing a highway. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: It had to be decided whether a particular road had become by presumed dedication a public highway. The use . .
Doubted in part – Hereford and Worcester County Council v Pick 1-Apr-1995
The issue was whether a presumed dedication of a road as a public highway could result from twenty years or more of uninterrupted public use in breach of section 34(1) of the 1988 Act. The court was considering whether a footpath, alleged to have . .
Cited – Hayling v Harper and Another CA 2-Apr-2003
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 . .
Cited – Dalton v Henry Angus and Co HL 14-Jun-1881
The court explained the doctrine of lost modern grant. Where there has been more than 20 years’ uninterrupted enjoyment of an easement, and that enjoyment has the necessary qualities to fulfil the requirements of prescription, then unless, for some . .
Cited – Regina v City of Sunderland ex parte Beresford HL 13-Nov-2003
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: . .
Cited – Gardner v Hodgson’s Kingston Brewery Co HL 1903
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 . .
Cited – Tinsley v Milligan HL 28-Jun-1993
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .
Cited – Rochdale Canal Proprietors v Radcliffe 1852
Riparian owners who operated steam engines had a statutory power, under the Act which created the canal company to extract from the canal ‘such quantities of water as shall be sufficient to supply the said engine or engines with cold water, for the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Whitmey, Regina (on the Application of) v the Commons Commissioners CA 21-Jul-2004
The applicant sought to leave to appeal against refusal of his challenge to the registration of land as a green.
Held: The 1965 Act did not limit the registration of greens to those which were registered by 3 January 1970. The Commons . .
Cited – Sommer and Another v Sweet and Another CA 10-Mar-2005
The claimants had sought entry into theirs and their neighbour’s registered land titles of entries to acknowledge their rights of way. The neighbours appealed the finding of a right of way of necessity and by proprietary estoppel, and an order for . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v The Land Registry (Peterborough Office) Admn 13-Feb-2009
The applicant sought judicial review of the cancellation of his application for first registration of land by adverse possession. The application had been rejected because a public right of way existed through it, and the claimant had not shown the . .
Mentioned – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Land Registry (Peterborough Office) and Another CA 10-Mar-2010
The appellant had lived in a caravan on the verge of a byway and had been here for more than twelve years. He appealed against rejection of his request for possessory title. He said that there was no support in law for the maxim that adverse . .
Cited – Littlejohns and Another v Devon County Council and Another CA 6-May-2016
Appeal against rejection of request for registration of land as a common: ‘At the heart of the appeal lies the question of law whether it is possible to acquire a right of common by virtue of an express grant or (as in the present case) user after 2 . .
Cited – Patel v Mirza SC 20-Jul-2016
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Leading Case

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.195052

The court set out the presumption ad medium filum as follows: ‘Where a piece of land which adjoins a highway is conveyed by general words, the presumption of law, is that the soil of the highway usque ad medium filum passes by the conveyance, even though reference is made to a plan annexed, the measurement and colouring of which would exclude it.’

Citations:

(1861) 30 LJCP 218, (1861) 25 JP 695, (1861) 7 Jur NS 876, (1861) 142 ER 507, [1861] EngR 272, (1861) 10 CB NS 400

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Commission for New Towns and Another v JJ Gallagher Ltd ChD 16-Dec-2002
Where a conveyance did not expressly include an adjoining road, there was no statutory presumption which would lead to its inclusion.
Held: The section referred to incorporeal rights, easements and similar, and not to land itself. The Act did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180970

A public enquiry was not needed where there was a proposal to compulsorily acquire common land under the Act, providing alternative land in substitution for the common land. The issues remained clear even though there were 800 local objections filed.

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-Mar-1993

Statutes:

Acquisition of Land Act 1981 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.90274

The Plaintiff was bound by a floating charge which crystallised on the land before registration. Scots law, following Roman law, is unititular, which means that only one title of ownership is recognised in any one thing at any one time.

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-1995, 1995 SC 455

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Safeway Stores Plc v Tesco Stores IHCS 6-Jun-2003
The parties appealed a decision of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland ordering rectification of the land register. A small area had been registered to two registers, and an error had occurred on the digitisation of the plan.
Held: The system of . .
Appeal from – Sharp v Thomson HL 1997
A floating charge was given over the whole of a company’s property which might from time to time be ‘comprised in our property and undertaking’. The charge terms echoed the section which allows a company to create a charge ‘over all or any part of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.89195

The plaintiff had acquired land to build a hospital, which would require re-alignment of a link road, over which the defendants had rights of way. The land was also subject to a restrictive covenant in favour of the defendants. The defendants did not object, and the re-alignment of the right of way would improve the safety and convenience of access to the public highway. The plaintiffs wanted to protect themselves against possible objections in the future to re-alignment of the right of way or change of use of the land, and applied for declarations that the defendants would not be entitled to an injunction to restrain the proposed re-alignment, and that their rights if any would be limited to an award of damages for interference with the right of way or compensation for breach of the restrictive covenant. The application was unopposed save for one of the defendants, who sought only to preserve a possible right to compensation, and with whom a formula for that purpose was agreed.
Held: There was no right in law to re-align the right of way, but in the circumstances it was appropriate to grant the declaration. The fact that there was no reasonable objection to the re-alignment, that the defendants had had notice and made no objection, and that the re-alignment was necessary to achieve ‘an object of substantial public and local importance and value’ in the provision of new hospital were relevant: ‘In short the law is sufficiently adaptable and responsive to the needs of litigants in proper cases . . to grant declarations which are necessary to dispel uncertainties and remove obstacles to progress and to legitimate activities.’

Citations:

Times 11-Jun-1998, Gazette 03-Jun-1998, [1998] 1 WLR 1749, [1998] 3 All ER 437

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Brown v Heathlands Mental Health National Service Trust 1996
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Well Barn Shoot Limited and Well Barn Farming Limited v Shackleton and Another CA 22-Jan-2003
The defendants had been tenant farmers of the plaintiff company which retained shooting rights over the land when part was sold to the defendants. The defendant object to the use of a roadway by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to repurchase the . .
Cited – Ford-Camber Ltd v Deanminster Ltd and Another CA 24-May-2007
The parties disputed the compensation for the diversion of a right of way. The right was over a service road connecting the land with the highway. If the land was acquired by the development authority under section 104, and was carried out by a . .
Cited – Regency Villas Title Ltd and Others v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd and Another CA 4-Apr-2017
Can a recreational purpose underlie an easement
The court considered the validity of easements of recreational facilities. A property had been developed with timeshare leases within a substantial and attractive grounds area. Later a second development was created but with freehold interests, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.81013

LT COMPENSATION – preliminary issue – disturbance payment – Land Compensation Act 1973 s 37 – advertisement site – claimant’s right to occupy terminating on disposal of land – land acquired by urban development corporation – hoardings removed by corporation – whether claimant displaced in consequence of acquisition – whether corporation an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers – held claimant entitled to compensation

Citations:

LCA/144/2000

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1973 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.168624

Citations:

LCA/171/1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.168616

Dispute about the water rights to a converted agricultural building

Citations:

[2020] EW Misc 25 (CC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.655657

The Lords retreated the Laird of Houston’s retour of the lands of –, because the assize saw no charter of blench-holding of the lands, but two or three retours eighty years old, making mention that they were holden blench; and also the superiors thereof, viz. the Lairds of Calder and M had not their precepts of sasine conform to the retours of blench, and therefore domini superiores videbantur confessi tacite terras easdem in albam firmam teneri, and therefore the Lords assoilzied the assize from wilful error, because the matter was doubtful, and not the less because blench-holding cannot be proved but by charter and sasine thereof, and that retours in this case make no sufficient probation; therefore the Lords retreated the said retour for ignorance of assize, as said is; and in this case the Laird of M. was the other party, and this retour was by the said James’s tenants retreated, for not production of the charter and sasine, which would not have been done in case that they had been produced.

Citations:

[1543] Mor 12674

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.557286

Citations:

[1842] EngR 556, (1842) 3 QB 166, (1842) 114 ER 471

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.307511

Compensation – Compulsory Purchase – Interest On A Loan Remaining Unpaid Following Acquisition

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 305 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.655898

A glebe bounded on the north by a river for a distance of 350 yards, marched at the river side with the estate of A to the west, and the estate of B to the east, these estates having a common march inland. No right of fishing belonged to the glebe. The proprietor of A raised an action against the proprietor of B concluding for declarator that he had the exclusive right of salmon fishing ex adverso of the glebe for a distance of 135 yards eastward from his march. The titles of each of the parties included the salmon fishings ‘belonging to’ their respective lands, but there was no express grant of the salmon fishings ex adverso of the glebe, nor did it appear out of what lands the glebe had been designated. The Crown was not called as a party to the action.
The First Division of the Court of Session ( rev. the judgment of the Lord Ordinary) granted decree of absolvitor upon the ground that the proprietor of A had not established such possession as would have been sufficient in a question with the Crown either to sustain a prescriptive right or to show that the fishings were within his title.
The House of Lords on appeal reversed this judgment, and pronounced declarator in terms of the conclusions of the summons, on the ground (1) that the question between the parties was one of boundary merely, and was not affected by the rights, if any, possessed by the Crown; and (2) that the evidence as to the reputed boundaries and as to possession was sufficient to support the appellant’s claim, and was not inconsistent with the titles under which the lands were held, or with the statutory regulations as to the designation of glebes.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lord Watson, Lord Macnaghten, and Lord Davey

Citations:

[1896] UKHL 516, 33 SLR 516

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.634013

A lease of a distillery included certain lands and two ponds, ‘together with the right to the water in the said ponds and in the streams leading thereto.’
H
eld (affirming the judgment of the Second Division, the Lord Chancellor dissenting) that water percolating through marshy ground into the ponds was not included in the expression ‘streams leading thereto,’ and that, assuming the lessors to be under an implied obligation not to diminish the supply of water in the ponds, the onus of proving that a diminution had resulted from operations of the lessors lay upon the lessee, and had not been discharged.
Opinions reserved (by Lord Watson and Lord Davey) whether such an implied obligation could be held to exist where certain sources of supply to the pond are specified and let.
Opinion (by Lord Shand) that such an obligation was to be implied.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), and Lord Watson, Lord Shand, and Lord Davey

Citations:

[1896] UKHL 174, 34 SLR 174

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.634027

Restrictive Covenants – Obsolescence

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 411 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.633595

Electronic Communications Code – Consideration – Compensation – Inner London Residential Rooftop Site

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 53 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.633598

In a general settlement a testator conveyed to his son his whole estate, heritable and moveable, ‘but declaring that this disposition and conveyance is granted and is to be accepted of under the following burdens, . . which are hereby declared to be real burdens on the estate hereby conveyed.’ These burdens included, inter alia, an annuity of pounds 35 in favour of the disponee’s sister. The disponee completed his title by notarial instruments (in terms of Schedule L, sec. 19, of the Titles to Land Consolidation Act 1868), each of which, after setting forth the conveyance in the general disposition, and describing the several subjects in which the disponer was infeft, narrated at length the clause declaring the said authority to be a real burden. These notarial instruments were duly recorded.
Held (rev. the decision of the Second Division) that a real burden was created on the lands.
When the trustee in a mercantile sequestration engages in litigation, he is personally liable for costs to the opposite party.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Herschell), and Lords Watson, Morris, and Shand

Citations:

[1893] UKHL 275, 31 SLR 275

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.633305

Certain Acts of Parliament whose object was, inter alia, to preserve open spaces for purposes of recreation prohibited the erection of ‘buildings’ upon such open spaces.
Held that a screen erected with the object of preventing an adjoining owner from acquiring a prescriptive right to the access of light over such an open space was not a ‘building.’
Judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed.
Per the Lord Chancellor (Halsbury)-‘A screen or some erection of that nature might be considered a ‘building’ with reference to some covenants, and might not be considered a ‘building’ with reference to others. The subject-matter to be dealt with and the subject to which the covenant is supposed to be applied are all to be looked at to see what the word ‘building’ means in relation to that particular subject-matter.’

Citations:

[1905] UKHL 565, 43 SLR 565

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621195

A stratum of coal was leased to the appellants under two leases which reserved expressly the right of working the strata below. One of the leases, which covered the greatest portion of the area, provided for the indemnification of the lessees for any ‘physical damage’ thus caused; the other lease provided that there should be no liability for any damage caused. It was admitted that the proper way of working the seams in question was the long wall system; it was proved that the working of coal in a seam is inevitably followed by a sinking of the whole of the above strata. Subsidence of the upper stratum was actually brought about by the working of the lower stratum, and the appellants’ company, whose operations were impeded, sued for an injunction against the colliery company of the lower strata to have them restrained from causing subsidence.
Held that by the necessary implication of the leases of the upper stratum the respondents were entitled to work the lower seams even to the extent of causing subsidence.

Judges:

Earl of Halsbury, Lords Macnaghten, Atkinson, and Collins

Citations:

[1910] UKHL 901, 47 SLR 901

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619785