S.62 LPA 1925:重申改革的理由

Michael W. Poulsom
{"title":"S.62 LPA 1925:重申改革的理由","authors":"Michael W. Poulsom","doi":"10.1108/IJLBE-09-2016-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \n \n \n \n \nThe purpose of this paper is to explore how S.62 LPA 1925 and its equivalent provisions in other jurisdictions have been interpreted as having the capacity to create new easements. It is intended to identify that the theoretical justification for this interpretation can be viewed as flawed, and that its practical implications are unsatisfactory. It intends to restate the need for reform and to challenge arguments that this interpretation is correct and justified. \n \n \n \n \nDesign/methodology/approach \n \n \n \n \nThis paper examines and analyses the origins of the principle that S.62 LPA 1925 can create new legal rights, consider similar provisions from other jurisdictions, examine recent attempts to justify the creative effect of the section and offer observations on proposals for reform. \n \n \n \n \nFindings \n \n \n \n \nIt is found that the ability of S.62 LPA 1925 to create legal easements from precarious rights has been replicated in many jurisdictions, has been widely criticised as both incorrect in principle and problematic in practice and has been the subject of well-reasoned and workable proposals for reform for more than 40 years. \n \n \n \n \nOriginality/value \n \n \n \n \nFrom both theoretical and property practitioner perspectives, this paper highlights the lack of justification for the principle that S.62 LPA can create easements from precarious rights, challenges the arguments for retaining the principle and offers practical proposals drawn from several jurisdictions as to how the section and its equivalent provisions abroad could be reformed.","PeriodicalId":158465,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"S.62 LPA 1925: restating the case for reform\",\"authors\":\"Michael W. Poulsom\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/IJLBE-09-2016-0012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThe purpose of this paper is to explore how S.62 LPA 1925 and its equivalent provisions in other jurisdictions have been interpreted as having the capacity to create new easements. It is intended to identify that the theoretical justification for this interpretation can be viewed as flawed, and that its practical implications are unsatisfactory. It intends to restate the need for reform and to challenge arguments that this interpretation is correct and justified. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDesign/methodology/approach \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThis paper examines and analyses the origins of the principle that S.62 LPA 1925 can create new legal rights, consider similar provisions from other jurisdictions, examine recent attempts to justify the creative effect of the section and offer observations on proposals for reform. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nFindings \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nIt is found that the ability of S.62 LPA 1925 to create legal easements from precarious rights has been replicated in many jurisdictions, has been widely criticised as both incorrect in principle and problematic in practice and has been the subject of well-reasoned and workable proposals for reform for more than 40 years. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nOriginality/value \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nFrom both theoretical and property practitioner perspectives, this paper highlights the lack of justification for the principle that S.62 LPA can create easements from precarious rights, challenges the arguments for retaining the principle and offers practical proposals drawn from several jurisdictions as to how the section and its equivalent provisions abroad could be reformed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":158465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLBE-09-2016-0012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLBE-09-2016-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文的目的是探讨第62条LPA 1925及其在其他司法管辖区的同等规定如何被解释为具有创造新地役权的能力。本文旨在指出,这种解释的理论依据可以被视为有缺陷的,其实际含义也不能令人满意。它打算重申改革的必要性,并对认为这种解释是正确和合理的论点提出质疑。本文考察和分析了S.62 LPA 1925可以创造新的法律权利这一原则的起源,考虑了其他司法管辖区的类似规定,审查了最近为证明该节的创造性效果而进行的尝试,并就改革建议提出了意见。研究发现,S.62 LPA 1925从不稳定的权利中创建合法地役权的能力已在许多司法管辖区被复制,被广泛批评为原则上不正确和实践中存在问题,并且在40多年来一直是合理可行的改革建议的主题。从理论和财产从业者的角度来看,本文强调了第62条LPA可以从不稳定的权利中创造地役权的原则缺乏正当性,挑战了保留该原则的论点,并提供了来自几个司法管辖区的关于如何改革该条款及其国外同等条款的实用建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
S.62 LPA 1925: restating the case for reform
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore how S.62 LPA 1925 and its equivalent provisions in other jurisdictions have been interpreted as having the capacity to create new easements. It is intended to identify that the theoretical justification for this interpretation can be viewed as flawed, and that its practical implications are unsatisfactory. It intends to restate the need for reform and to challenge arguments that this interpretation is correct and justified. Design/methodology/approach This paper examines and analyses the origins of the principle that S.62 LPA 1925 can create new legal rights, consider similar provisions from other jurisdictions, examine recent attempts to justify the creative effect of the section and offer observations on proposals for reform. Findings It is found that the ability of S.62 LPA 1925 to create legal easements from precarious rights has been replicated in many jurisdictions, has been widely criticised as both incorrect in principle and problematic in practice and has been the subject of well-reasoned and workable proposals for reform for more than 40 years. Originality/value From both theoretical and property practitioner perspectives, this paper highlights the lack of justification for the principle that S.62 LPA can create easements from precarious rights, challenges the arguments for retaining the principle and offers practical proposals drawn from several jurisdictions as to how the section and its equivalent provisions abroad could be reformed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信