In [case], a right to use a garden was claimed as an easement. The dominant owner claimed that the servient owner had interfered with this by creating a gravel driveway over part of the garden which the dominant owner tended as a flowerbed. The court agreed and awarded damages, but also held that the easement to use the garden did not prevent the servient owner from also being able to use the land. The creation of the driveway by the servient owner would not necessarily interfere with the right to use the whole of the garden for recreation and amenity, and therefore the dominant owner had no right to have the flowerbed restored.
Answer
Jackson v Mulvaney [2003] 1 WLR 360
Tags
#easements #land #law
Question
In [case], a right to use a garden was claimed as an easement. The dominant owner claimed that the servient owner had interfered with this by creating a gravel driveway over part of the garden which the dominant owner tended as a flowerbed. The court agreed and awarded damages, but also held that the easement to use the garden did not prevent the servient owner from also being able to use the land. The creation of the driveway by the servient owner would not necessarily interfere with the right to use the whole of the garden for recreation and amenity, and therefore the dominant owner had no right to have the flowerbed restored.
Answer
?
Tags
#easements #land #law
Question
In [case], a right to use a garden was claimed as an easement. The dominant owner claimed that the servient owner had interfered with this by creating a gravel driveway over part of the garden which the dominant owner tended as a flowerbed. The court agreed and awarded damages, but also held that the easement to use the garden did not prevent the servient owner from also being able to use the land. The creation of the driveway by the servient owner would not necessarily interfere with the right to use the whole of the garden for recreation and amenity, and therefore the dominant owner had no right to have the flowerbed restored.
Answer
Jackson v Mulvaney [2003] 1 WLR 360
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In Jackson v Mulvaney [2003] 1 WLR 360, a right to use a garden was claimed as an easement. The dominant owner claimed that the servient owner had interfered with this by creating a gravel driveway over pa
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised 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.