Hair v Gillman and Inskip
Hair v Gillman and Inskip
- 2000
- Property and Compensation Reports [2000] 80 P&CR 108-116(9) .
CA 17 February 2000. Claimants, H, owned a building which had a forecourt at the front. G had purchased a school building based at the rear of H's building from H's predecessor and parked her car on the forecourt. None of the leases in the past had included the forecourt or any express rights over it. H sought to declare that G had no right to park on the forecourt. G claimed that H's predecessor had agreed that she would be entitled to use the forecourt when she purchased the building. Judge concluded that this informal agreement was capable of being an easement. However, he found in favour of H. G appealed. Appeal allowed.
EASEMENT
IMPLIED GRANT
HAIR V GILLMAN AND INSKIP
PARKING
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S62
CA 17 February 2000. Claimants, H, owned a building which had a forecourt at the front. G had purchased a school building based at the rear of H's building from H's predecessor and parked her car on the forecourt. None of the leases in the past had included the forecourt or any express rights over it. H sought to declare that G had no right to park on the forecourt. G claimed that H's predecessor had agreed that she would be entitled to use the forecourt when she purchased the building. Judge concluded that this informal agreement was capable of being an easement. However, he found in favour of H. G appealed. Appeal allowed.
EASEMENT
IMPLIED GRANT
HAIR V GILLMAN AND INSKIP
PARKING
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S62