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
It is possible to apply for an injunction in order to prevent the interference which the dominant tenement owner complains of. However, such an action is unlikely to be justified where the infringement is only trivial or temporary and would be oppressive to the servient tenement owner and can be adequately compensated by a money payment. For recent cases on these last points see [ case ], and Regan v Paul Properties Ltd [2007] Ch 135. These contrasting cases, both concerning applications for injunctions to demolish new buildings, highlight the discretionary nature of the remedy, thereby illustrating the point that each individual case must be treated on its own merits. The burden is on the defendant to show why damages should be awarded rather than an injunction.
Answer
Tamares (Vincent Square) Ltd v Fairpoint Properties (Vincent Square) Ltd [2007] 1WLR 2148

Tags
#easements #land #law
Question
It is possible to apply for an injunction in order to prevent the interference which the dominant tenement owner complains of. However, such an action is unlikely to be justified where the infringement is only trivial or temporary and would be oppressive to the servient tenement owner and can be adequately compensated by a money payment. For recent cases on these last points see [ case ], and Regan v Paul Properties Ltd [2007] Ch 135. These contrasting cases, both concerning applications for injunctions to demolish new buildings, highlight the discretionary nature of the remedy, thereby illustrating the point that each individual case must be treated on its own merits. The burden is on the defendant to show why damages should be awarded rather than an injunction.
Answer
?

Tags
#easements #land #law
Question
It is possible to apply for an injunction in order to prevent the interference which the dominant tenement owner complains of. However, such an action is unlikely to be justified where the infringement is only trivial or temporary and would be oppressive to the servient tenement owner and can be adequately compensated by a money payment. For recent cases on these last points see [ case ], and Regan v Paul Properties Ltd [2007] Ch 135. These contrasting cases, both concerning applications for injunctions to demolish new buildings, highlight the discretionary nature of the remedy, thereby illustrating the point that each individual case must be treated on its own merits. The burden is on the defendant to show why damages should be awarded rather than an injunction.
Answer
Tamares (Vincent Square) Ltd v Fairpoint Properties (Vincent Square) Ltd [2007] 1WLR 2148
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
likely to be justified where the infringement is only trivial or temporary and would be oppressive to the servient tenement owner and can be adequately compensated by a money payment. For recent cases on these last points see <span>Tamares (Vincent Square) Ltd v Fairpoint Properties (Vincent Square) Ltd [2007] 1WLR 2148, and Regan v Paul Properties Ltd [2007] Ch 135. These contrasting cases, both concerning applications for injunctions to demolish new buildings, highlight the discretionary

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.