Chapter 18 Self-test Questions

. Which of the following rights can only be equitable, and cannot be legal?

An easement expressly granted by deed, under which the owners of Northacre can take a short cut across Southacre to get to and from Northacre. The easement is expressed to last 'for the lifetime of HRH, the Duchess of Cambridge'.

An easement expressly granted by deed, under which the owners of Northacre can cut across Southacre to get to and from Northacre. The easement is to last for one year.

A profit à prendre which arises by prescription.

An easement which, like the ventilation shaft easement in Wong v Beaumont (see page 559), is implied into a legal lease by deed.

. Until 1960, John owned Wilby House and the adjoining East Grounds. In 1960, he sold East Grounds to Kevin. He reserved for himself an easement 'to pass on foot with or without animals' along a track which led across East Grounds from the local village to Wilby House. Maria, the current owner of Wilby House, wants to ride her horse along the track. Which of the following points would be decisive against Maria's claim?

The easement created in 1960 was by express reservation, therefore, if in doubt, it should be construed against the person making the reservation or his successors.

Back in 1960, there was a gateway just six feet (1.8 metres) tall at the entrance to the track from the village.

John, because of a medical condition, was (back in 1960) unable to ride a horse.

Back in 1960, Wilby House lacked a stable.

. Until 2012, Johpur owned both West Farm and Remote House. In 2012, he sold Remote House to Kirsty. Remote House is 'landlocked' (i.e. has no access to the public road). Hitherto, this has not caused a problem, as Kirsty has, with Johpur's permission, driven along a track across West Farm to get to and from Remote House. Matters have now turned nasty, as Kirsty has suddenly converted Remote House into a guest house, and her guests both drive along the track and take other routes across West Farm. What is the current legal position?

Kirsty has a way of necessity for all purposes, including running a guest house, along the track.

Kirsty has a way of necessity confined to residential purposes. The servient owner (Johpur) fixes the route.

Kirsty has a way of necessity confined to residential purposes. She, as the dominant owner, fixes the route.

Kirsty has a way of necessity for all reasonable purposes; the servient owner (Johpur) fixes the route.

. Until recently, Xeron owned two adjoining fields: West Field and East Field. He gained access to West Field, not through East Field but through North Field. North Field is owned by Wanda who, as a gesture of friendship, allowed Xeron and his equipment to pass through North Field.
Xeron has now sold West Field to Yusuf. The conveyance said nothing about easements. The only public road access to West Field is a narrow lane, not suitable for anything larger than an average four wheel drive. Yusuf needs an easement to West Field, as he intends to establish a pig-farming business there. That business will require an access route for lorries.
Can Yusuf claim an implied easement?

Yes, over North Field under s.62 LPA 1925.

Yes, there is a way of necessity over East Field.

Yes, over East Field, if he can show that Xeron knew of his plans for a pig farm.

Yes, over East Field, under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows.

. Until recently, Felicia owned both Big Factory and adjoining Wide Yard. Wide Yard is a large flat concrete area, with no specific use. Felicia's lorries used to drive across Wide Yard to reach Big Factory. There was an average of 100 lorry movements every working day.
Felicia has just sold Big Factory to Gregor. Nothing was said about easements. Big Factory is served by a side road rather narrow for lorries, and the residents are already complaining. The cut across Wide Yard also provides a much more direct route to the main road network. Can Gregor claim an easement by implied grant?

Yes, if at the time he purchased Big Factory the tyre marks were visible on Wide Yard, using the authority under s.62 LPA 1925 following the judgment in Wood v Waddington.

Yes, there is an 'intended easement'.

No, even under Wheeldon v Burrows, because of the alternative route along the side road.

No, the tyre marks are not visible on Wide Yard.

. John owned Purple House and adjoining Green Space, a large concreted area which he uses for various storage purposes. In 2004, he leased Purple House to Kevin for ten years. Purple House includes a large garage. However, in 2008, John gave Kevin permission to park his car on Green Space 'whenever there is space', and Kevin from time to time made use of this permission.
When Kevin's lease expired in 2016, John sold the freehold in Purple House to Leonard. Leonard claims an easement to park his car on Green Space. Will his claim succeed?

No, because the right claimed cannot be an easement.

No, because the right claimed was, prior to the sale, only exercised 'from time to time'. It was not 'continuous and apparent'.

No, because Purple House has its own 'large garage', and it therefore cannot be said that the parking on Green Space is 'necessary'.

Yes.

. Which of the following statements is correct?

The various rules for an implied grant cannot apply where land is acquired under a compulsory purchase order.

The rules for the implied grant of easements cannot be excluded by contrary agreement.

There can be no implied grant where a testator's will leaves two adjoining plots of land to different beneficiaries.

S.62 LPA 1925 can be applied to an equitable -lease or contract for sale.

. Lemuel owned White Restaurant and adjoining Black Square, both of which were still unregistered title. Black Square is a rough piece of ground used mainly for storage. Until 2015, Lemuel ran White Restaurant very successfully. Most of his clientele reached the restaurant by walking over Black Square, as this is by far the shortest route to and from the town centre.
In 2015, Lemuel granted a seven-year legal lease of White Restaurant to Tartar. In 2017, Lemuel sold Black Square to Patel. Patel concedes that in Tartar acquired an easement under the Wheeldon v Burrows rule, but he contends that the easement does not bind him. The easement has not been entered on either the Land Charges Register or on the Register of Title. Does the easement (which is greatly valued by Tartar and his customers) bind Patel?

Yes

No; the easement should have been registered as a land charge on the computer at Plymouth.

No, as the right should have been protected by an entry of a Notice at the District Land Registry.

No, as the easement is 'overreached'.

. Same scenario as in Question 08, except that the freeholds to White Restaurant and Black Square have been registered title since 1992. The easement, which is used every day by Tartar's customers, has not been entered on the Land Register in any way. Does the easement bind Patel?

No, the easement should have been registered under LRA 2002, s.27(2)(d).

Yes, the easement is overriding within Sch.3(2) LRA 2002.

Yes, the easement is overriding within Schedule 3 para 3, LRA 2002.

No, the easement should have been protected by the entry of a Notice.

. Same scenario as in Question 09, except that the lease of White Restaurant is only an equitable lease. Patel conceded that the equitable lease is an overriding interest within Sch.3(2), but contends that he is not bound by the easement. The easement has not been entered onto the Land Register in any way. Does the easement bind Patel?

Yes, because it is an overriding interest by virtue of Schedule 3 para 3 LRA 2002.

Yes, because it is an overriding interest by virtue of Schedule 3 para 2 LRA 2002.

No, because it should have been protected by the entry of a notice on the register of title.

No, because it should have been substantially registered under LRA 2002, s.27(2)(d).

Quiz Content