Re Ellenborough Park
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
| Property law |
|---|
| Part of the common law series |
| Acquisition of property |
| Gift · Adverse possession · Deed |
| Lost, mislaid, or abandoned |
| Treasure trove |
| Alienation · Bailment · License |
| Estates in land |
| Allodial title · Fee simple · Fee tail |
| Life estate · Defeasible estate |
| Future interest · Concurrent estate |
| Leasehold estate · Condominiums |
| Conveyancing of interests in land |
| Bona fide purchaser |
| Torrens title · Strata title |
| Estoppel by deed · Quitclaim deed |
| Mortgage · Equitable conversion |
| Action to quiet title |
| Limiting control over future use |
| Restraint on alienation |
| Rule against perpetuities |
| Rule in Shelley's Case |
| Doctrine of worthier title |
| Nonpossessory interest in land |
| Easement · Profit |
| Covenant running with the land |
| Equitable servitude |
| Related topics |
| Fixtures · Waste · Partition |
| Riparian water rights |
| Lateral and subjacent support |
| Assignment · Nemo dat |
| Other areas of the common law |
| Contract law · Tort law |
| Wills and trusts |
| Criminal Law · Evidence |
Re Ellenborough Park ([1956] Ch. 131)[1] is a case in English Property Law, primarily concerning the validity of an Easement.
[edit] Facts
Ellenborough Park is a large area of parkland in Weston-super-Mare. The land was owned in 1855 by two tenants in common, who sold off parts of the land for the building of houses, and granted rights to the owners of the houses to enjoy the parkland which remained. The land was enjoyed for some time to come, until 1955, when Judge Danckwerts delivered his decision on the case which arose. Part of the problem arose out of the fact that the War Office had taken possession of the land during World War II, and compensation was due to be paid to the owners of the properties built on land surrounding the land which had been occupied during the war. Beneficiaries of the trust of the original owners of the land challenged this, stating that the property owners had only a personal advantage, and not an easement proper.
[edit] Decision
The decision of Judge Danckwerts determined the following critera for defining an easement, which were taken from Cheshire's "Modern Real Property":
(1) There must be a dominant and a servient tenement
(2) an easement must "accommodate" the dominant tenement
(3) dominant and servient owners must be different persons and
(4) a right over land cannot amount to an easement unless it is capable of forming the subject matter of a grant
It was decided from this that the occupiers of the properties in question were therefore the proper benficiaries and that they did enjoy an easement over the parkland in question.
[edit] References
- ^ http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1955/4.html&query=ellenborough+and+park&method=boolean Full text of case at Baillii.
