Taurusbuild Limited & Ors v John Paul McQue & Anor
Decision date: 18 March 2019
Neutral citation: [2019] UKUT 81 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether rights to use a southern driveway and to park at the front of Dinsdale Hall existed and whether they had been created or preserved by various conveyances, mortgages and planning permissions. The Upper Tribunal rejected an equitable-easement basis tied to the 1988 conveyance but held that a right of way and a right to park were implied into the 2005 mortgage in favour of the mortgagee (MAS) and passed to the Respondents under the 2012 transfer. No express easement was contained in the 2012 transfer and the Respondents could not claim the benefit of the Fifth Schedule covenants from the 1988 conveyance. The appeal was dismissed insofar as the Tribunal upheld the implied rights arising from the mortgage.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
An easement reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of a mortgaged dominant tenement can be implied into a mortgage/charge and, absent a contrary intention in the transfer, such an implied easement can pass to a purchaser from a mortgagee in possession; conversely, positive covenants in an earlier vendor’s conveyance do not automatically create enforceable easements in favour of subsequent purchasers who do not take title under the retained land.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment contains observations (non-binding) on the complexity of the law of implied easements and the difficulties faced by litigants in person, on the parties and planning authority having intended front access and parking for 2 The Hall, and on the appropriate scope of user for the easement (including licencees, tradesmen and similar users).