Hair v Gillman and Inskip
Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; [2000] 80 P&CR 108-116(9)Publication details: 2000Subject(s): Summary: 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.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | X107844 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 107844-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
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.