E R Ives Investments Ltd v High: CA 14 Dec 1966

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 permission to believe he is entitled on a permanent basis to enjoy the right and in that belief he sufficiently alters his position to his detriment, by expenditure of money or otherwise, he may become entitled in equity to the easement by proprietary estoppel. The landowner would not be able to withdraw the permission he had given. 20 years’ enjoyment of the equitable right would enable the beneficiary of the permission to claim a legal easement under the 1832 Act. In such a case the enjoyment of the right pursuant to the original permission is enjoyment by a person ‘claiming right thereto’. The original permission would be the foundation of the claim of right but the enjoyment would not have been precario. A purchaser taking with actual notice of the equity will be bound by it. An equity arising from a proprietary estoppel could not be registrable under the Land Charges Act as an equitable easement within class D(iii).
Lord Denning MR, Danckwerts, Winn LJJ
[1967] 2 QB 379, [1966] EWCA Civ 1, [1967] 1 All ER 504, [1967] 2 WLR 789
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina 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: . .
CitedTinsley v Milligan CA 1992
The court considered the defence of illegal user to a claim to have established an easement by prescription: ‘These authorities seem to me to establish that when applying the ‘ex turpi causa’ maxim in a case in which a defence of illegality has been . .
CitedTinsley v Milligan CA 1992
The court considered the defence of illegal user to a claim to have established an easement by prescription: ‘These authorities seem to me to establish that when applying the ‘ex turpi causa’ maxim in a case in which a defence of illegality has been . .
CitedSweet and Another v Sommer and Another ChD 25-Jun-2004
Part of land had been sold off. By oversight no right of way had been taken in favour of the retained land. The dominant owner argued that by demolition of a building a means of access could be found and that therefore no right of way by necessity . .
CitedSommer 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 . .
CitedUnited Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib and Others CA 2-Feb-1996
The bank appealed against a decision that the simple deposit of deeds with a bank did not take effect as an equitable charge.
Held: Depositing deeds with a bank is not sufficient to create a charge over them. The old law as to the creation of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 January 2021; Ref: scu.187770