Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
5 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
DEF ''W v B' rule'
|
'Wheeldon v Burrows': landowner uses one part of his land for benefit of another part (e.g. crosses field to reach house). This 'quasi-E' would be an E if sep. ownership or occupation
If he sells the 'quasi-dominant' tenement, he impliedly grants the purchaser that right as an E NB: failed in 'W v B' as was trying to impliedly reserve NB: there is a paucity of 'W v B' as standard practice is to expressly exclude it |
|
Rationale of 'W v B' rule
|
Is about USE; ensures that purchaser (incl. tenant, mortgagee) gets as Es the same rights enjoyed by the prev. owner
|
|
Five conditions for 'W v B' rule
|
'Wheeldon v Burrows':
1) Capable of being an E: as usual 2) Occurring imm. prior to sale: DEF 'immediately' never tested, although some lawyers advise to stop a few months before sale 3) Used by/on behalf of seller: can include 'agents' e.g. visitors -- 'Hillman v Rogers': owner allowed others to use the road crossing 4) Continuous and apparent use: DEF: visible upon inspection of the land, or use is just obv. -- Millman v Ellis: fact that lay-by was covered in tarmac --> Not that is constantly in use; more about visibility 5) Reasonably necessary: for the enjoyment of the land -- 'Millman v Ellis': this isn't 'necessity'; was enough the lay-by made access to the prop. considerably safer |
|
Conditions (4) and (5)
|
Confusion as to whether are alternative or cumulative:
- 'W v B': used both 'and' and 'or' - Have authorities on both But prob. doesn't matter as in most cases there is both |
|
Exclusion of the 'W v B' rule
|
Standard conveyancing practice
'Millman v Ellis': need the clearest of words. Express grant of a similar, narrow E does not exclude the implication of the broader E |