This requirement for prior diversity is something which distinguished implied acquisition by this method from that under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows. It is clear that acquisition by the latter method requires the grantor to be the common owner and occupier of both the dominant and servient tenements prior to any conveyance (or indeed contract) relating to the dominant tenement. However, [ case ](see the activity point below) held that no prior diversity of ownership of occupation is needed for s 62 if the right is continuous and apparent. Initially there was doubt as to whether Platt was correctly decided. It was cited as good law by the Court of Appeal in Alford v Hannaford [2011] EWCA Civ 1099 but the same court expressly left the point open in Campbell v Banks [2011] EWCA Civ 61. However in the most recent Court of Appeal decision on this issue Lewison LJ, in Wood v Waddington [2014] EWHC 1358, entertains no such doubts in applying Platt.
Answer
P&S Platt Ltd v Crouch
Tags
#easements #land #law
Question
This requirement for prior diversity is something which distinguished implied acquisition by this method from that under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows. It is clear that acquisition by the latter method requires the grantor to be the common owner and occupier of both the dominant and servient tenements prior to any conveyance (or indeed contract) relating to the dominant tenement. However, [ case ](see the activity point below) held that no prior diversity of ownership of occupation is needed for s 62 if the right is continuous and apparent. Initially there was doubt as to whether Platt was correctly decided. It was cited as good law by the Court of Appeal in Alford v Hannaford [2011] EWCA Civ 1099 but the same court expressly left the point open in Campbell v Banks [2011] EWCA Civ 61. However in the most recent Court of Appeal decision on this issue Lewison LJ, in Wood v Waddington [2014] EWHC 1358, entertains no such doubts in applying Platt.
Answer
?
Tags
#easements #land #law
Question
This requirement for prior diversity is something which distinguished implied acquisition by this method from that under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows. It is clear that acquisition by the latter method requires the grantor to be the common owner and occupier of both the dominant and servient tenements prior to any conveyance (or indeed contract) relating to the dominant tenement. However, [ case ](see the activity point below) held that no prior diversity of ownership of occupation is needed for s 62 if the right is continuous and apparent. Initially there was doubt as to whether Platt was correctly decided. It was cited as good law by the Court of Appeal in Alford v Hannaford [2011] EWCA Civ 1099 but the same court expressly left the point open in Campbell v Banks [2011] EWCA Civ 61. However in the most recent Court of Appeal decision on this issue Lewison LJ, in Wood v Waddington [2014] EWHC 1358, entertains no such doubts in applying Platt.
Answer
P&S Platt Ltd v Crouch
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it s. It is clear that acquisition by the latter method requires the grantor to be the common owner and occupier of both the dominant and servient tenements prior to any conveyance (or indeed contract) relating to the dominant tenement. However, <span>P&S Platt Ltd v Crouch (see the activity point below) held that no prior diversity of ownership of occupation is needed for s 62 if the right is continuous and apparent. Initially there was doubt as to whether
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.