ER Ives Investment Ltd v High [1967] 2 QB 379, [1967] 1 All ER 504, CA
Westgate built foundations that encroached on his neighbour's land (both sites having been bombed in World War II). In 1949, an agreement was reached between Westgate and High that the foundations could stay but that High could have access over Westgate's back garden. No deed was executed. No land charge was registered. In 1950 Westgate sold to Wright with notice. Over the next 12 years, Wright stood by while High built a garage in reliance upon the 1949 agreement, and contributed to the cost of re-surfacing the yard. In 1962, E.R. Ives bought with notice (subject to High's rights, if any), and sued High for trespass. They argued that any interest that High might have had was void against them for lack of registration under the Land Charges Act 1925.
The Court of Appeal held that E.R. Ives were bound by High's equitable easement, despite the lack of registration. The first (held by Denning M.R. only) was that there were three main grounds for the decision. The original contract did not need to be registered, either as a class C(iv) estate contract or a class D(iii) equitable easement. the second was that Wright's acquiescence and encouragement created an estoppel interest binding ER Ives and finally the third was that E.R. Ives, knowing of the agreement and taking the benefit of it by taking advantage of the foundations on High's land, were bound to take the burden also under the mutual benefit and burden doctrine.
This study area has been created by our experts to help students with Administrative Law Essay and Problem Questions. If you require further help with your question, why not order a fully customised model answer on which to base your assignment? Use our online order form to submit your request and you could have a complete model answer written to your specification within 24 hours.
