| 000 | 01174cam a2200253 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS68674 | ||
| 008 | 050127n2004 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u128644 | ||
| 100 | _aSydenham, A. | ||
| 245 | _aSweet v Somner | ||
| 260 | _c2004 | ||
| 490 |
_aFarm Tax Brief _v19(10) December 2004/January 2005, 7-8(2) |
||
| 520 | _aDiscusses a case involving an easement of necessity, one of the exceptions to the rule that grants of easement are construed against the grantor. An easement of necessity means an easement which is needed to access the property rather than one for the reasonable enjoyment of the property. The claimants argued that a way of necessity had been created by the transfer of part of a block of land in 1988, making the retained property landlocked. The case also debated whether the easement should be for foot access only or should allow vehicular access too. | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 650 | _aEASEMENTS | ||
| 650 | _aEASEMENT OF NECESSITY | ||
| 650 | _aACCESS | ||
| 650 | _aBARRY V HASSELDINE | ||
| 650 | _aMANJANG V DRAMMEH | ||
| 650 | _aSWEET V SOMNER | ||
| 690 | _aPROPERTY AND LAND LAW | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c118494 _d118494 |
||