Hair v Gillman
|Hair v Gillman|
|Court||Court of Appeal|
|Citation(s)||(2000) 80 P&CR 108|
Ms Gillman had taken a seven-year lease of a school built at the back of a three-storey building that had a forecourt, owned by B. It had a right of way by the building, but no right of way over the forecourt. The building was leased to accountants for 21 years from 1977, and the freehold was bought by Mr Hair in 1985. Gillman claimed that she had been given permission to park her car in the forecourt, and this crystallised into an easement under Law of Property Act 1925, section 62(1) when she bought the school. Mr Hair sought a declaration this was not the case.
Judge LJ held the permission was capable of being an easement, but Law of Property Act 1925, section 62(1) did not apply because the use was never intended to be on a permanent basis. Ms Gillman appealed.
Held that the right, even though precarious, was capable of falling under Law of Property Act 1925, section 62(1), Wright v Macadam  2 KB 744. The forecourt use was not temporary as it was not to end at a certain date. It was not secure either, and could have been withdrawn at any time, but it was nevertheless protected now.