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.
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.
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
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.