Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Property Law
- Site generally
- A person cannot sue if his successor failed to do so
- Delaware mansions v. Westminster CC
- Although the HL expressed disagreement with these principles
- The work must match those on the planning drawings
- Royal Brompton Hospital v Hammond
- Right of trespass
- Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992
- Temporary licence to trip trees was lawful to remove visitors
- Dutton v. Manchester Airport
- Note this cannot lawfully be done unless planning permission is granted
- Countryside Residential v Tugwell
- Transforming things into land
- Materials incorporated into the works
- Owned by the occupier
- Holland v Hodgson
- If SC not been paid, during insolvency of the
Employer, may only be a creditor
- Peoples Park Chinatown v. Schindlers Lifts
- Sales of Goods Act 1979
- Same result - title passes upon delivery of goods/material, if not before
- Rompala clause - Retention of title
- May assist where materials are not yet incorporated
- Might still be defeated by the SoGA 1979
- Neighbour risk
- May seek damages for invasion of property rights
- Ocean Leisure v. Westminster City Council
- Two types of risks
- Type 1 - Complaints about impacts during construction
- Type 2 - Complaints about what is being constructed
- Hunter v Canary Wharf
- HoL took a narrow view of the Private Nuisance principle
- Private law background
- Easements and restrictive covenants
- Incumbrences on land
- Easements can arise out of grant, or by prescription
- Cant exists as a right to light, or view
- Covenants can only originate with a promise in a deed
- Convert a benefit for the original covanantee - on the burdened land
- Courts will impose demolition if a developer breaches a covenant or right of light
- Mortimer v Bailey
- Rylands v Fletcher rule
- Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather
- Two primary tactics for avoiding issues
- Pre-construction negotiation
- Pre-construction legal proceedings
- Upper Tribunal - Law of Property Act 1925
- Worst case scenario
- Self Help
- Right to abatement - to remove lawfully things invading their land
- Also has right to security for compensation purposes
- Injunction or damages
- Four part test for damages
- Shelfer v City of London Electric
- Woolerton wilson v Costain
- Although, this principle was not followed
- Trenberth v National Westminster Bank
- Principle followed in Brewhouse developments v Berkeley House
- There can be a economic balance
- Burton v Winters
- Damage
- Usually cost of damage or difference between value of house
- Tort may not be limited to damages
- Injunction
- Note the limitation period
- Two distinct versions of potential liability
- Rylands and Fletcher rule
- Diminishing supprort
- Holback Hall v Scarborough Council