In Baker v Baker (1993) 25 HLR 408, it was stated that no award could exceed the claimant’s expectation. This has broadly been followed, but a notable exception is [ case ](see para 7.2 where the claimant’s expectation was an easement, subject to making a payment for it. The court actually granted an easement without any payment, as the court took account of the council’s delay and high-handed manner towards the claimant. In that case, the court stated that the basis of an award should be ‘the minimum equity to do justice’ (Crabb v Arun DC [1976] Ch 179, at 198 per Scarman LJ).
Answer
Crabb v Arun DC
Tags
#land #law #proprietary-estoppel
Question
In Baker v Baker (1993) 25 HLR 408, it was stated that no award could exceed the claimant’s expectation. This has broadly been followed, but a notable exception is [ case ](see para 7.2 where the claimant’s expectation was an easement, subject to making a payment for it. The court actually granted an easement without any payment, as the court took account of the council’s delay and high-handed manner towards the claimant. In that case, the court stated that the basis of an award should be ‘the minimum equity to do justice’ (Crabb v Arun DC [1976] Ch 179, at 198 per Scarman LJ).
Answer
?
Tags
#land #law #proprietary-estoppel
Question
In Baker v Baker (1993) 25 HLR 408, it was stated that no award could exceed the claimant’s expectation. This has broadly been followed, but a notable exception is [ case ](see para 7.2 where the claimant’s expectation was an easement, subject to making a payment for it. The court actually granted an easement without any payment, as the court took account of the council’s delay and high-handed manner towards the claimant. In that case, the court stated that the basis of an award should be ‘the minimum equity to do justice’ (Crabb v Arun DC [1976] Ch 179, at 198 per Scarman LJ).
Answer
Crabb v Arun DC
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In Baker v Baker (1993) 25 HLR 408, it was stated that no award could exceed the claimant’s expectation. This has broadly been followed, but a notable exception is Crabb v Arun DC (see para 7.2 where the claimant’s expectation was an easement, subject to making a payment for it. The court actually granted an easement without any payment, as the court took accoun
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.