Defendant leased an annex to Plaintiff with an express clause that visitors to Plaintiff could gain access through the yard. Whilst this first lease was still in force Defendant also gave Plaintiff permission for his visitors to come through the hall.
Defendant and Plaintiff later signed a second lease that said nothing about the hallway.
CA held that Plaintiff’s claim succeeded under s.62 although it failed under Wheeldon since the hall was convenient, but not necessary for reasonable enjoyment.
He says this case is similar to Wright v Macadam and therefore must be covered by s.62 (Bad analogy-based reasoning).
The moment of conveyance is taken not as being when the agreement was stated to have begun but when in actual fact Plaintiff was living there and able to enter etc.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Land Law | Easements Notes (48 pages) |
Land Law | Leases Notes (77 pages) |