Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
List of Cases for Easement
LAW 554 – Land Law II

compiled by azrin.hafiz

1
Alfred Templeton & Ors v Low
Yat Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor






Facts: the Vendor in selling land
had retained for the r...
Cont…
The grounds for the easement in equity were
that the D company:(a) had agreed in sale and purchase
agreement that th...
Decision


Court granted relief to P on the basis of equity.
The defendant company was ordered to
execute and register an...
Datin Siti Hajar v Murugasu




Facts: P is the Registered
Proprietor of 2 pieces of
land. One of the land has
a road fr...
CONT…




Since 1964, D and the occupiers of the
houses have been using the road as access
to and from public road (cons...
Decision
It was decided that the metalled road
constructed by D was not easement even
though P never objected to it. An ea...
EW Talalla v Ng Yee Fong & Anor



Facts:
A part of the D’s premises, a
septic
tank,
had
encroached upon by P’s
land for...
Decision
Court held: under the Code an easement
must be created by express grant. Orders
were made under which D had to ce...
Tan Wee Choon v Ong Peck
Seng & Anor






Facts: P had bought a
piece of land over which
there was a path used by
D as...
Decision
P succeeded.
Court held that whatever the right
claimed by D might be, it had not
been registered as an easement ...
CONT…


“ it is true that prior to 1965 rights of way
could be acquired through easement,
prescription, lost modern grant...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Cases for Easement

6,792 views

Published on

relevant cases for easement
LAW554 - Land Law II
Faculty of Law
UiTM, Malaysia

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

Cases for Easement

  1. 1. List of Cases for Easement LAW 554 – Land Law II compiled by azrin.hafiz 1
  2. 2. Alfred Templeton & Ors v Low Yat Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor    Facts: the Vendor in selling land had retained for the remaining land the benefit of a right of way. Later, the purchaser commenced building work on the purchased land which hindered access to the vendor’s land which became landlocked as a result. In seeking to maintain the right of way the vendor claimed, inter alia, specific performance of the contractual right of way or a declaration that it was entitled to an equitable easement in respect of such a right. compiled by azrin.hafiz 2
  3. 3. Cont… The grounds for the easement in equity were that the D company:(a) had agreed in sale and purchase agreement that the land was sold subject to the right of way; (b) knew that the vendor would not have sold unless the right had been agreed upon; and (c) later orally agreed to grant such a right. compiled by azrin.hafiz 3
  4. 4. Decision  Court granted relief to P on the basis of equity. The defendant company was ordered to execute and register an easement in statutory form.  “…when…the defendant company has by its words and conduct led P to believe that they would be provided a right of way from their lots, which otherwise would be landlocked, it should not be allowed to go back on them when it would be unjust or inequitable for it to do so.” (Edgar Joseph J at p 245) compiled by azrin.hafiz 4
  5. 5. Datin Siti Hajar v Murugasu   Facts: P is the Registered Proprietor of 2 pieces of land. One of the land has a road frontage with a public road which leads to town. D is the owner of the adjacent land compiled by azrin.hafiz 5
  6. 6. CONT…   Since 1964, D and the occupiers of the houses have been using the road as access to and from public road (constructed a metalled road across P’s land as an approach road to link up with a public road). P allege that since 1964 D has built the road on her land without her consent and had been wrongfully trespassing on the said land. compiled by azrin.hafiz 6
  7. 7. Decision It was decided that the metalled road constructed by D was not easement even though P never objected to it. An easement could only be granted by an express grant as provided for under Section 284 NLC and that such grant could only be made with the agreement of the proprietor of the SL and affected by way of executing an instrument in Form 17A. (an injunction restraining D by himself or his servants or agent from entering or crossing P’s land and damages was granted to P) compiled by azrin.hafiz 7
  8. 8. EW Talalla v Ng Yee Fong & Anor   Facts: A part of the D’s premises, a septic tank, had encroached upon by P’s land for more than 20 years. P’s sought an order for removal of the septic tank and D contended that as P had been aware of the encroachment for a long time, he must be taken to have acquiesced in the encroachment thereby creating an easement in favour of D’s land. compiled by azrin.hafiz 8
  9. 9. Decision Court held: under the Code an easement must be created by express grant. Orders were made under which D had to cease the encroachment, the septic tank was to be removed and D were to refrain from again encroaching. “acquiescence on the part of P is not sufficient to create an easement. There must be an expressed grant of easement in accordance with the provision of the sections” (W Hamzah J) compiled by azrin.hafiz 9
  10. 10. Tan Wee Choon v Ong Peck Seng & Anor    Facts: P had bought a piece of land over which there was a path used by D as access to their land. P fenced the land but the fence was removed by D. P then sought a declaration that he was entitled to the exclusive possession of the land, and an injunction restraining D from trespassing on the land. compiled by azrin.hafiz 10
  11. 11. Decision P succeeded. Court held that whatever the right claimed by D might be, it had not been registered as an easement and further it was unclear as to how it had been obtained. compiled by azrin.hafiz 11
  12. 12. CONT…  “ it is true that prior to 1965 rights of way could be acquired through easement, prescription, lost modern grant or by way of necessity but these common law and equitable rights previously procurable in this country are no longer available since the passing of section 3(1) and 6 of the Civil Law Act 1956 and the …Code” (Wan Yahya J at p 323.) compiled by azrin.hafiz 12

×