Adealon International Proprietary Ltd v London Borough of Merton
Adealon International Proprietary Ltd v London Borough of Merton
- 2006
[2006] EWHC 1075 (Ch), 12 April 2006. Considers the entitlement to right of way. A sought a declaration that its land was entitled to a right of way over land owned by M. Originally both pieces of land had been owned by a company which transferred M's land to M's predecessor in title whilst keeping ownership of A's land. The transfer of M's land contained no express reservation of an easement in favour of A's land. The company subsequently transferred A's land to A assigning all causes of action relating to the land to A. A wanted to develop it by gaining access to a highway running to the south but M indicated that planning permission would not be granted, leaving A's land without a reservation of grant over M's land and effectively landlocked. A contended that a reservation of way should of necessity be implied in its favour. "Held": application refused. A had not demonstrated that it was entitled to the grant of an easement of necessity. When the two parcels of land were split no express reservation of easement was established and the need for such a right had never been contemplated by any party.
ADEALON INTERNATIONAL PROPRIETARY LTD V MERTON LBC
BARRY V HASSELDINE
TITCHMARSH V ROYSTON WATER COMPANY LTD
LONDON CORPORATION V RIGGS
England and Wales--1543-
[2006] EWHC 1075 (Ch), 12 April 2006. Considers the entitlement to right of way. A sought a declaration that its land was entitled to a right of way over land owned by M. Originally both pieces of land had been owned by a company which transferred M's land to M's predecessor in title whilst keeping ownership of A's land. The transfer of M's land contained no express reservation of an easement in favour of A's land. The company subsequently transferred A's land to A assigning all causes of action relating to the land to A. A wanted to develop it by gaining access to a highway running to the south but M indicated that planning permission would not be granted, leaving A's land without a reservation of grant over M's land and effectively landlocked. A contended that a reservation of way should of necessity be implied in its favour. "Held": application refused. A had not demonstrated that it was entitled to the grant of an easement of necessity. When the two parcels of land were split no express reservation of easement was established and the need for such a right had never been contemplated by any party.
ADEALON INTERNATIONAL PROPRIETARY LTD V MERTON LBC
BARRY V HASSELDINE
TITCHMARSH V ROYSTON WATER COMPANY LTD
LONDON CORPORATION V RIGGS
England and Wales--1543-