a. What were the relevant facts of Ives Investment Ltd v High 1967
High owned a property and was building a house there. Mr Westgate purchaed an adjacent propetty t builf some flats. Mr High noticed that the foundations of the flats trespassed 1 foot onto his property. High spoke to Westgate aboyt it. They agree that the trespasse would be permitted in return for High having a right of way acrooss the land. High build his house so that the only way in was to drive across westgates’s land.
Westgate then sold the flats to a couple called Wright. The conveyance ddi not say thatthe right of way and it was NOT registered as a land charge
The wrights let High use the right of way for 14 years. High the built a garage on this basis.
The Erights then sold their flat and said that there was a right of way. They mentioned thet right of way
Ives Investment ltd bought the flats and tried to bring an injunction to stop High ysing the right of way. The noted that ot as not regsterd ina ccrdance with the Land Charges Act 1972
Th e court found for High. The right of way was in return for the foundations intruding onto High’s land and the flats would not exist but for that
There was equity in Highs favour. He had been allowed to do this for years and had built on the faith of the primise
Ives Investment had actual notice of this. It would be ounonscionable to drpive Hgh of this right
Inwards v Baker was cited.
b. Could the decision in this case have been made on other grounds?
I do not see how. Maybe an easemrnt of necessity
c. Would the result have been different in registered land?
The registerd is supposed to a full record of all interests in land but for those deliberately kept off it as in trusts.
The buyer has the right to know of all interesrs. The buyer would be protected as the regsiet gaurantees the rights of those who buy regstered land//. In that case High cold have registsred a land charge and his failure to do so would mean he would get compentsaton orposisble an easement of necessity.
The buyer would not be equity;s dalring against whom equity has no recourse. Because they had notice