Anda di halaman 1dari 2


Whether the right of way (easement) is enforced on the land, or enforced against a

If right is proprietary, it can still be enforced against the new owner of the land
when the granter transfers ownership.
If right is personal, when the granter loses ownership of land, the right is no
longer enforceable.

Usually negative rights

Need to look at the term of the contract
Need to see if it is in the fixed list of rights capable of being proprietary

a. must relate to land s205 lpa1925

b. must be in the list set out in s1
c. must satisfy definitional requirement (easement must not amount to exclusive
d. must comply with formalities
e. the right must be protected

dominant land -
servient land -

if rights, need to be transferred by deed

need more information

2. She has the highest hierarchy of rights

The bank owns the house?
Freehold is a term that applies to the land, not the structure
Maybe you bought the house entire but on a leasehold land which still belongs to
the Crown
freehold reversion

3.test (Holland v Hodgson)

degree and purpose
if conflict, purpose prevails (Hemp v Bygrave)

the issue is whether the carpet and the glass summerhouse counts as a fixture or a
personal chattel. Fixture is transferred with the land but the owner is entitled to
remove any personal chattels.
Law of Property Act 1925 s62, cannot remove fixture after contracted to sell
property, since conveyance includes all fixtures unless explicitly excluded.

The firmer the object is fixed to the land, the more likely it is to be classified
as a fixture.
It is also more likely to be classified as a fixture if the annexation was more for
the convenient use of the building than for the enjoyment of the object.

Since the carpet was attached by nails to the floor. It is firmly annexed to the
land and thus should be considered a fixture. Thus possession of the carpet follows
ownership of the land.
(Bothon v Bank) -
(La Salle Recreations v Canadian Carndex Investments)
need to give multiple cases
victorian theme

Since the summerhouse rested on a concrete platform in the garden, it should be

considered as part of the architectural design of the garden and thus should be
considered a fixture according to D'Eyncourt v Gregory

You could sue for the reinstallation of the above fixtures or damages in lieu.

4. The satellite dish is set up in what is considered by law in lower airspace i.e.
necessary for ordinary use and enjoyment of land. As long as the satellite dish
overhangs into the property, it is considered trespass regardless whether any
damage is caused. (Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co)
You could sue for an injunction or for damages in lieu. Look for 2 cases.

5. The issue is whether the owner of the land is entitled over the finder to the
brooch. No true owner (Moffatt v Kazana). Since it was found amongst leaves, the
brooch is therefore unattached to the ground. Moreover, prior to the finder finding
the brooch, the landowner had not 'manifested an intention to exercise control over
the...things found on it' (Parker v British Airways). So the finder is entitled to
the brooch, not the landowner (Bridges v Hawkesworth).

know the facts of the case.