Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#easements #land #law
Question
In the case of [case], the right to the passage of water through pipes on the servient land was claimed as an easement. At first instance, the judge rejected this, as the water meter measuring the supply to both the dominant and servient tenements was on the servient land, and the servient owner was solely responsible for the payment of the bills. This positive obligation on the servient owner to pay for the water supply was held to be inconsistent with the concept of an easement. On appeal, the court upheld the easement. It drew a distinction: the right claimed was not a right to a water supply (which would involve compulsory expenditure by the servient owner), but a right to the passage of water through existing pipes. The servient owner was under an obligation not to physically interfere with the flow of water through the pipes but could not be compelled to pay for a supply of water in the first place. As a consequence he would not be liable if the water company withdrew the supply. Given, however, that the servient owner was unlikely to stop paying for water as he needed it for his land and because he was legally obliged to pay for any water that was supplied, the dominant owner was liable in quasi-contract to reimburse him for the water he did receive via the servient owner’s supply.
Answer
Rance v Elvin (1985) 50 P&CR 9

Tags
#easements #land #law
Question
In the case of [case], the right to the passage of water through pipes on the servient land was claimed as an easement. At first instance, the judge rejected this, as the water meter measuring the supply to both the dominant and servient tenements was on the servient land, and the servient owner was solely responsible for the payment of the bills. This positive obligation on the servient owner to pay for the water supply was held to be inconsistent with the concept of an easement. On appeal, the court upheld the easement. It drew a distinction: the right claimed was not a right to a water supply (which would involve compulsory expenditure by the servient owner), but a right to the passage of water through existing pipes. The servient owner was under an obligation not to physically interfere with the flow of water through the pipes but could not be compelled to pay for a supply of water in the first place. As a consequence he would not be liable if the water company withdrew the supply. Given, however, that the servient owner was unlikely to stop paying for water as he needed it for his land and because he was legally obliged to pay for any water that was supplied, the dominant owner was liable in quasi-contract to reimburse him for the water he did receive via the servient owner’s supply.
Answer
?

Tags
#easements #land #law
Question
In the case of [case], the right to the passage of water through pipes on the servient land was claimed as an easement. At first instance, the judge rejected this, as the water meter measuring the supply to both the dominant and servient tenements was on the servient land, and the servient owner was solely responsible for the payment of the bills. This positive obligation on the servient owner to pay for the water supply was held to be inconsistent with the concept of an easement. On appeal, the court upheld the easement. It drew a distinction: the right claimed was not a right to a water supply (which would involve compulsory expenditure by the servient owner), but a right to the passage of water through existing pipes. The servient owner was under an obligation not to physically interfere with the flow of water through the pipes but could not be compelled to pay for a supply of water in the first place. As a consequence he would not be liable if the water company withdrew the supply. Given, however, that the servient owner was unlikely to stop paying for water as he needed it for his land and because he was legally obliged to pay for any water that was supplied, the dominant owner was liable in quasi-contract to reimburse him for the water he did receive via the servient owner’s supply.
Answer
Rance v Elvin (1985) 50 P&CR 9
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In the case of Rance v Elvin (1985) 50 P&CR 9, the right to the passage of water through pipes on the servient land was claimed as an easement. At first instance, the judge rejected this, as the water meter measuring the supply to

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.