Facts
The Crouches sold a hotel at Horning to P & S Platt Ltd and retained nearby land called Noosa Sound, part of an island on the River Bure. Hotel guests had used its moorings and access path, and signs advertised the hotel and moorings. Platt did not exercise its option to buy the retained land. When the Crouches restricted access and removed hotel references from the signs, Platt claimed rights over Noosa Sound.
Issue
Did the mooring, access and sign rights pass with the hotel under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, and were they capable of being easements?
Decision
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crouches’ appeal. The rights were enjoyed with the hotel as part of its business and were continuous and apparent. Section 62 converted them into easements on the transfer, despite the lack of prior separate occupation of the two properties.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
The rights affected the Crouches’ enjoyment of Noosa Sound, but left them with reasonable use of the land. The mooring rights were shared rather than exclusive. The trial judge had rejected a separate claimed fishing right for want of sufficient evidence of use.
Source: Full judgment
