Quick question... land law.

6.7 A profit appurtenant is annexed to an estate in the dominant land and runs with the land. Such profits should comply with the characteristics set out for easements in Re Ellenborough Park.

Not an area I know a lot about, but as no-one else is trying to help. I would have thought that this was a profit, and not an easement.

The fact that the test in re Ellenborough Park is satisfied is not decisive - see the Law Commission report on easements and profits, for example (http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/cp186_Easements_Covenants_and_Profits_a_Prendre_Consultation.pdf):

Is a deed giving a party (the former owner of a property) permission to graze two animals on land a profit a prendre or easement? I assume that it is a profit as grazing animals takes a resource from the property, i.e. grass.

Really wished I could help you with this but trust me I struggle with Land law myself. But I know a deed is a legal document regarding the legal rights and ownership of property. Easement, on the other hand, is the right to use someone else's land.

Struggling with land law too!

Was told that equity was going to be difficult but frankly I'm hating land and lfeu lol

(Land law esp)

Struggling with land law too!

Was told that equity was going to be difficult but frankly I'm hating land and lfeu lol

(Land law esp)

It's so incredibly frustrating

Agree with your sentiments about equity and land!

Really wished I could help you with this but trust me I struggle with Land law myself. But I know a deed is a legal document regarding the legal rights and ownership of property. Easement, on the other hand, is the right to use someone else's land.

Ikr!!

Equity wasn't that bad tbh but land is something else!

No worries. For some reason lots of people seem to stuggle with land......

Yeah haha just going to stick to problem questions in the exam

Lfeu is just as bad too
Which university are you at? Are the lecturers helpful?

Not sure if I should say where (incase other students or lecturers see etc); however, I will say it's North of London... . Lecturers don't really want to help . I tried to ask another student but she's as stuck as me.

Call me sad but I quite liked EU law - I would take that over a land question any day!

This is driving me insane lol!

Thanks so much for your help and the link. Was about to repeatedly bang my head against the wall.

This question is really confusing. When I emailed my tutor, she said that I should focus on easements. The question concerns a neighbour who has signed a deed to graze his two children's horses. However, this doesn't seem to me that it could be capable of being an easement - how on earth does this accommodate (benefit) the land? I also think it may be purely recreational (Mounsey v Ismay (1865)). What do you think?

Thanks again!

Again - it's been a long time since I've done this, but, I think it depends on what exactly the right claimed is. If the deed permits N (the neighbour) to graze his children's two horses Frankel and Youmzain, then I agree that does not accommodate the land because it is purely personal to the neighbour as the owner of those horses. If the deed permits the owner of Blackacre to graze up to two horses for such-and-such a period of time, then I don't see why it couldn't accommodate the land, because the right to graze up to two horses might be of benefit to a subsequent owner of Blackacre. It's not a requirement that an easement be of value to every possible future owner of land, or even a majority of them (for example, Moody v Steggles).

I don't think I ever really understood what the 'recreational' test was. After all, wasn't the easement in Re Ellenborough Park itself quite recreational?

If the Law Commission is correct in saying that the test for profits is also the re Ellenborough Park test (see the link I posted above), then it must be the case that a right of grazing passes that test, because undoubtedly rights of pasture have been accepted as profits since time immemorial... Are profits even on your module? They weren't on mine at all. If not, then I suspect you are not supposed to attempt to decide whether this right is more accurately described as an easement or a profit.

Anyway, there's something of the 'blind leading the blind' about this post

Ah I see
Oh dear lol
Lmao how could you like eu at all! I'm sick of hearing all the stupid article names, it drives me crazy.
What topics in land law are you struggling with in particular. Have you made any notes yet?

You seem very knowledgable and your help is very much appreciated!
The text books are no help, though Halsbury's laws says that grazing horses is a profit (confusing). Grazing two horses (the tenement's children's) would surely be a personal advantage.

What's confusing me is that it's asking us to discuss whether it can be an easement and the part of the question states that the tenement was granted a deed, which makes me think that they want us to discuss its enforceability against subsequent owners. Obviously if I conclude that its personal I will not be able to do that ......

lol - I guess my brain works in a funny way. The direct effect of directives etc seemed pretty simple. Although there's something quite depressing about having to read a five page judgment of Article 34 TFEU on a Saturday night

I've just never really go into land law. The notes I have are supplied but are not helpful whatsoever. Equity and trusts is also very tedious (in my opinion).

That is very depressing lmao
Land law is awful but they're some areas that are alright like leases and co ownership (really easy one) if you'd like I can email some notes that I use that could be of help. In areas you find difficult