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
#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

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

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.