References: [1863] EWHC Exch J26, [1863] EngR 493, (1863) 2 H and C 121, (1863) 159 ER 51
Links: Bailii, Commonlii
Coram: Bramwell B
Ratio: The canal company had by deed granted the sole right to use the canal for pleasure boats to the plaintiff. The defendant disturbed that right by using the canal for the same purpose.
Held: The claim failed. The right under the contract was not an easement but only a personal licence. It existed not for the accommodation and better enjoyment of the land but more the land was required to exploit the right. Bramwell B said that ‘it is not competent to create rights unconnected with the use and enjoyment of land, and annex them to it so as to constitute a property in the grantee. This grant merely operates as a licence or covenant on the part of the grantors, and is binding on them as between themselves and the grantee, but gives him no right of action in his own name for any infringement of the supposed exclusive right.’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Polo Woods Foundation v Shelton-Agar and Another ChD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 1361 (Ch), [2009] 2 P and CR DG20, [2010] 1 All ER 539, [2010] 1 P and CR 12)
The court considered whether the claimant had established a profit a prendre against the defendant neighbour’s land in the form of a right of pasturage, acquired either by lost modern grant or by prescription.
Held: The appeal succeeded, but . . - Cited – Hall and Others v Mayor of London (on Behalf of The Greater London Authority) CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 817, [2010] WLR (D) 195, WLRD, [2011] 1 WLR 504)
The appellants sought leave to appeal against an order for possession of Parliament Square on which the claimants had been conducting a demonstration (‘the Democracy Village’).
Held: Leave was refused save for two appellants whose cases were . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 06 April 2019
Ref: 189971
The post Hill v Tupper: 1863 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.