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
Claiming an easement through any one of the three methods of prescription outlined below requires, in each case, that the exercise of the right must have been ‘as of right’ i.e. nec vi; nec clam; nec precario (neither by force, by stealth, nor by permission). So, in [case], the defendant’s claim to a prescriptive easement of drainage failed because the use, while not surreptitious, was unknown to and unsuspected by the plaintiff.
Answer
Barney v BP Truckstops Ltd [1995] CLY 1854

Tags
#easements #land #law
Question
Claiming an easement through any one of the three methods of prescription outlined below requires, in each case, that the exercise of the right must have been ‘as of right’ i.e. nec vi; nec clam; nec precario (neither by force, by stealth, nor by permission). So, in [case], the defendant’s claim to a prescriptive easement of drainage failed because the use, while not surreptitious, was unknown to and unsuspected by the plaintiff.
Answer
?

Tags
#easements #land #law
Question
Claiming an easement through any one of the three methods of prescription outlined below requires, in each case, that the exercise of the right must have been ‘as of right’ i.e. nec vi; nec clam; nec precario (neither by force, by stealth, nor by permission). So, in [case], the defendant’s claim to a prescriptive easement of drainage failed because the use, while not surreptitious, was unknown to and unsuspected by the plaintiff.
Answer
Barney v BP Truckstops Ltd [1995] CLY 1854
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
h any one of the three methods of prescription outlined below requires, in each case, that the exercise of the right must have been ‘as of right’ i.e. nec vi; nec clam; nec precario (neither by force, by stealth, nor by permission). So, in <span>Barney v BP Truckstops Ltd [1995] CLY 1854, the defendant’s claim to a prescriptive easement of drainage failed because the use, while not surreptitious, was unknown to and unsuspected by the plaintiff.<span></body

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.