| 000 | 01093cam a2200229 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS64976 | ||
| 008 | 020124n2001 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u116432 | ||
| 100 | _aGreig, W | ||
| 245 | _aRight to exclusive use precludes easement | ||
| 260 | _c2001 | ||
| 490 |
_aCSM _bChartered Surveyor Monthly _vNovember/December 2001, 34(1) |
||
| 520 | _aDiscusses how two recent CA cases have clarified the law regarding the distinction between easements and excluse rights over property. In "Hanina v Morland" the defendant's claim that she was entitled to a prescriptive easement to use the roof of a three storey property failed. A similar conclusion was drawn in "Batchelor v Marlow" which concerned a right of way over an upadopted road. It was found that the respondents practice of parking cars did not constitute a valid easement. | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 650 | _aEASEMENTS | ||
| 650 | _aPRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS | ||
| 650 | _aHANINA V MORLAND | ||
| 650 | _aBATCHELOR V MARLOW | ||
| 650 | _aCOPELAND V GREENHALF | ||
| 690 |
_aBoundary disputes _96221 |
||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c69355 _d69355 |
||