Bass v Gregory | |
---|---|
The Jolly Angler, Nottingham | |
Court | Queen's Bench |
Citation(s) | (1890) 25 QBD 481 |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | = Sir Charles Edward Pollock, Baron of the Court of Exchequer and Serjeant-at-Law |
Keywords | |
Easements, prescription, tort |
Bass v Gregory (1890) is an English tort law and English land law case, concerning a ventilation shaft on under or through adjoining land (a "passage of air"). It was deemed an easement by prescription, having been used without long interruptions for forty years. At the time of the case, the law, and the leading judge made a fine technical distinction between prescription by statute and by the common law doctrine of lost modern grant.
English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.
English land law is the law of real property in England and Wales. Because of its heavy historical and social significance, land is usually seen as the most important part of English property law. Ownership of land has its roots in the Anglo-Saxon system of Bookland and in the Anglo-Saxon multiple estate, a feudal system transformed by William the Conqueror and his influx of many new chief landlords after 1066. The modern law's sources derive from the old courts of common law and equity which includes legislation such as the Law of Property Act 1925, the Settled Land Act 1925, the Land Charges Act 1972, the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and the Land Registration Act 2002, and the European Convention on Human Rights. At its core, English land law involves the acquisition, content and priority of rights and obligations among people with interests in land. Having a property right in land, as opposed to a contractual or some other personal right, matters because it creates privileges over other people's claims, particularly if the land is sold on, the possessor goes insolvent, or when claiming various remedies, like specific performance, in court. Capital taxation, the industrial revolution and reform of the established church has resulted in a shift from predominant ownership by the church and landed gentry to largely agricultural, minority aristocratic ownership. This means today sites for development belong to a complex web of owners able meet market demand-side forces for development, tempered by supply-side forces including the values enshrined in public planning policy to protect green spaces and promote sustainable, locally diverse and socially useful development of land.
Bass and her tenant owned a pub called The Jolly Anglers in Meadow Road, Beeston, Nottingham. They brought a claim against the owner of neighbouring land (including the cottage in which he lived), Gregory, for blocking a ventilation shaft out of Bass' cellar. Bass brewed beer in the cellar, and the ventilation shaft allowed the fumes to run out of the cellar, through the ground, which connected to Gregory's water well, out of which the air escaped. The shaft had existed for at least 40 years.
Beeston is a town in Nottinghamshire, England, 3.4 miles (5.5 km) southwest of Nottingham city centre.
Nottingham is a city and unitary authority area in Nottinghamshire, England, 128 miles (206 km) north of London, 45 miles (72 km) northeast of Birmingham and 56 miles (90 km) southeast of Manchester, in the East Midlands.
Pollock B held that Bass had a right to the passage, because the law deemed that if a right had been exercised for a long number of years, there was a legal foundation to the right. He said the following. [1]
“ | I find, in fact, that for many years — certainly for forty years - there has been a communication between the plaintiffs' cellar and the old well; and by means of that communication the air, some of it impregnated by the brewing operations, has passed from the cellar into the well through the hole or shaft which formed the communication, and upwards through the grating at the top of the well into the open air; so that the well became the ventilating shaft for the cellar. I also find that that state of things was known to the defendant, and to those before him who occupied the yard in which the old well was. Upon the evidence given at the trial it was impossible, to my mind, to suppose that the air, especially when impregnated by the brewing operations, could have passed up the well and out into the open air without it being known to the person, whoever he might be, occupying the yard. Those being my findings in fact, it becomes necessary to consider the law applicable to them. It was argued for the defendant that no such right as that claimed in this case could exist at law, and in support of that proposition the case of Bryant v Lefevre was cited. I do not think that case has any application. There the plaintiff and defendant occupied adjoining premises, and the plaintiff's complaint was that the defendant, in rebuilding his house, carried up the building beyond its former height, and so checked the access of the draught of air to the plaintiff's chimneys. Lord Coleridge CJ, at nisi prius, gave judgment for the plaintiff, but the Court of Appeal, upon the authority of Webb v Bird , held that the right claimed could not exist at law, and that the principle laid down in Chasemore v Richards (a case decided with respect to the right to the flow of water) applied. The view of the Court was that no man could dictate to his neighbour how he should build his house with respect to the general current of air common to all mankind. It was thought that no such right could by the English law be successfully asserted; and it was said that no such right ever had been successfully asserted in this country. There are many reasons, which I need not now go into, for supporting that principle as a sound principle of law; but it does not apply to the present case, because if ever there was a case of the access of air to premises through a strictly defined channel this is that case. In Gale v Abbot and Dent v Auction Mart Co. injunctions were granted to remove and prevent impediments to ventilation. In both cases the right claimed was very much of the same nature as the right claimed here. In both cases it was held, after great consideration, that the right was one known to the English law, which could protect it by injunction. I do not, therefore, find any difficulty in holding, not only that in point of fact the plaintiffs proved their case, but that the case was proved establishing a legal right. It was said for the defendant that, assuming such a right could exist at law, the Prescription Act did not apply to it, and that upon the evidence a lost grant ought not to be presumed. In Webb v Bird Erle CJ, expressed an opinion that the second section of the Prescription Act only applied to rights of way and of water. If it were necessary for me to decide that point, I should certainly prefer to adopt Lord Selborne's view in Dalton v Angus . But it is not necessary, because the plaintiffs have also claimed to be entitled by lost grant. Now, although a good deal has been said from time to time against the doctrine of lost grant, yet almost all civilized countries have adopted it. That doctrine amounts in substance to this: that if a legal right is proved to have existed and been exercised for a number of years the law ought to presume that it had a legal origin. Perhaps the doctrine has best been stated by Parke, B., in Bright v Walker , who says, at page 217: “For a series of years prior to the passing of this Act (the Prescription Act 1832) judges had been in the habit, for the furtherance of justice and the sake of peace, to leave it to juries to presume a grant from a long exercise of an incorporeal right, adopting the period of twenty years by analogy to the Statute of Limitations. Such presumption did not always proceed on a belief that the thing presumed had actually taken place; but, as is properly said by Mr. Starkie in his treatise on Evidence, a technical efficacy was given to the evidence of possession beyond its simple and natural force and operation.” That rule has been acted upon for very many years, and was recognized both in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords in Dalton v Angus . I am of opinion that the Court ought to presume a lost grant here, and I know no case in which the doctrine could be more properly applied, because it is impossible to suppose that the precise history of two adjoining tenements such as these should have been preserved. One must look at the state of things existing for a series of years, and then see what is the fair presumption where a person allows an easement of this kind to grow up to the benefit of his neighbour's land and the detriment of his own. I am of opinion, therefore, that the plaintiffs have properly stated their case, and that they have proved a legal right to the relief which they claim. Prescription Act 1832 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom concerning English land law, and particularly the method for acquiring an easement. It was passed on August 1, 1832. | ” |
The Court of Chancery was a court of equity in England and Wales that followed a set of loose rules to avoid the slow pace of change and possible harshness of the common law. The Chancery had jurisdiction over all matters of equity, including trusts, land law, the estates of lunatics and the guardianship of infants. Its initial role was somewhat different: as an extension of the Lord Chancellor's role as Keeper of the King's Conscience, the Court was an administrative body primarily concerned with conscientious law. Thus the Court of Chancery had a far greater remit than the common law courts, whose decisions it had the jurisdiction to overrule for much of its existence, and was far more flexible. Until the 19th century, the Court of Chancery could apply a far wider range of remedies than common law courts, such as specific performance and injunctions, and had some power to grant damages in special circumstances. With the shift of the Exchequer of Pleas towards a common law court and loss of its equitable jurisdiction by the Administration of Justice Act 1841, the Chancery became the only national equitable body in the English legal system.
Shaft may refer to:
Land rehabilitation is the process of returning the land in a given area to some degree of its former state, after some process has resulted in its damage. Many projects and developments will result in the land becoming degraded, for example mining, farming and forestry.
Adverse possession, sometimes colloquially described as ‘squatter's rights’, is a legal principle under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property—usually land —acquires legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation of the land without the permission of its legal owner.
The Red Pyramid, also called the North Pyramid, is the largest of the three major pyramids located at the Dahshur necropolis in Cairo, Egypt. Named for the rusty reddish hue of its red limestone stones, it is also the third largest Egyptian pyramid, after those of Khufu and Khafra at Giza. It is also believed to be Egypt's first successful attempt at constructing a "true" smooth-sided pyramid. Local residents refer to the Red Pyramid as el-heram el-watwaat, meaning the Bat Pyramid.
A solar chimney – often referred to as a thermal chimney – is a way of improving the natural ventilation of buildings by using convection of air heated by passive solar energy. A simple description of a solar chimney is that of a vertical shaft utilizing solar energy to enhance the natural stack ventilation through a building.
A tenement is a multi-occupancy building of any sort, but particularly a run-down apartment building or slum building.
Shaft mining or shaft sinking is excavating a vertical or near-vertical tunnel from the top down, where there is initially no access to the bottom.
Rylands v Fletcher[1868] UKHL 1 was a decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir, playing no active role in its construction. When the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts improperly filled with debris, they chose to continue work rather than properly blocking them up. The result was that on 11 December 1860, shortly after being filled for the first time, Rylands' reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage. Fletcher brought a claim under negligence against Rylands, through which the case eventually went to the Exchequer of Pleas. The majority ruled in favour of Rylands. Bramwell B, however, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that as a result the defendant was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell's argument was affirmed, both by the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the "Rule in Rylands v Fletcher"; that "the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape". No right "to enjoy property" exists in UK black letter law, and it is this decision upon which stare decisis is built in the area.
The Burnley Tunnel is a tollway tunnel in Melbourne, in Victoria, Australia, which carries traffic eastbound from the West Gate Freeway to the Monash Freeway. It is part of the CityLink Tollway operated by Transurban. Running under the Yarra River and the inner suburbs of Richmond and Burnley, the tunnel provides a bypass of the central business district.
A crankcase ventilation system (CVS) is a one way passage for the blow-by gases to escape in a controlled manner from the crankcase of an internal combustion engine.
A brattice is a partition used in mining. It is built between columns of a sub-surface mine to direct air for ventilation. Where the mine is sunk at the base of a single shaft, the shaft is divided into two parts by a wooden or metal brattice. Air is delivered down one side of the shaft and exhausted upwards through the other.
Clifton Hall Colliery was one of two coal mines in Clifton on the Manchester Coalfield, historically in Lancashire which was incorporated into the City of Salford in Greater Manchester, England in 1974. Clifton Hall was notorious for an explosion in 1885 which killed around 178 men and boys.
The right of patronage in Roman Catholic canon law is a set of rights and obligations of someone, known as the patron in connection with a gift of land (benefice). It is a grant made by the church out of gratitude towards a benefactor.
An easement is a nonpossessory right to use and/or enter onto the real property of another without possessing it. It is "best typified in the right of way which one landowner, A, may enjoy over the land of another, B". It is similar to real covenants and equitable servitudes; in the United States, the Restatement (Third) of Property takes steps to merge these concepts as servitudes.
The Avondale Mine disaster was a massive fire at the Avondale Colliery near Plymouth, Pennsylvania, on September 6, 1869. It caused the death of 110 workers. It started when the wooden lining of the mine shaft caught fire and ignited the coal breaker built directly overhead. The shaft was the only entrance and exit to the mine, and the fire trapped and suffocated 108 of the workers. It was the greatest mine disaster to that point in American history.
Easements in English law are certain rights in English land law that a person has over another's land. Rights recognised as easements range from very widespread forms of rights of way, most rights to use service conduits such as telecommunications cables, power supply lines, supply pipes and drains, rights to use communal gardens and rights of light to more strained and novel forms. All types are subject to general rules and constraints. As one of the formalities in English law express, legal easements must be created by Deed.
Das v Linden Mews Ltd[2002] EWCA Civ 590 is an English land law case, concerning rights of way.
Crow v Wood[1970] EWCA Civ 5 is an English land law case, confirming an easement commonly exists for the right to have a fence or wall kept in repair expressed in earlier deeds, which is right which is capable of being "granted" by law and secondly, as a separate but on the facts, related issue, of the right of common land pasture asserted by continued use.