Hill v Tupper [1863] 2 H & C 121
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:01:30 UTC
Plaintiff owned an allotment of land on the side of a river ran his boat on the river which he was allowed to do by the council for his business.
-
Court held that this was a licence and could not be an easement because the river was not used for “accommodating” the claimant’s land in the sense of helping to “facilitate a working of the very soil of the land”.
Gardner: This demonstrates that the test is too narrow.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
IDC v Clark
Plaintiff and B signed a deed (which described itself as a licence), purporting to bind all successors, to create an opening between their houses through which they could pass. Defendant bought B’s h...
Tate & Lyle v GLC
Ferry terminals constructed by the defendants in the River Thames caused excessive silting. This disrupted the plaintiff's business by obstructing access to their jetty and they had to spend large su...
Mulvaney v Gough
The owners of various cottages (Plaintiff) had used a plot of land (belonging to Defendant), adjacent to the cottages as a communal garden. Defendant decided to gravel path the garden, destroying flo...
Rance v Elvin
Defendant granted Plaintiff a right uninterrupted flow of water through water pipes situated under the retained land, with Plaintiff contributing to the cost of the supply, but Defendant was the part...
Rowland v Environment Agency
Plaintiff bought property with some waterways that he thought were private. The Navigation Authority, assuming this to be correct, allowed her to erect signs to this effect, before later concluding (...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.