超级军网英居民：“我的地，当然可以修庭院” vs 英法院：“拆了 ...
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 18:38:58
Battleground: The disputed private cul-de-sac in Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, where the drama unfolded
事发地，死胡同，屋主买了尽头的屋子，同时买下了屋前停着两辆车的地
Retreat: A builder begins to take down the gateposts before the offending patio is ripped up
开始拆柱子了
这个是今天《每日邮报》很火的一个新闻。事实大概如下：
1. 屋子的主人买下了屋子和屋前的地，修了一个小庭院
The Taylors bought the disputed land when they purchased Villa Sogno seven years ago, and they had always used it as a driveway.
It seemed the perfect addition to their ￡1million home.
Trevor and Carolyn Taylor were delighted with their new patio, laid in slabs of finest Indian sandstone at the front of their property – named Villa Sogno, Italian for Dream House.
2. 邻居觉得，不能够借屋主家门前的地，倒车困难了
It meant cars had limited space to move at the end of the 100ft road, forcing drivers to perform multi-point turns to manoeuvre their way out of the leafy close.
3. 屋主辩称前任主人在前面停了六辆车和一艘小船，邻居们压根没有使用这块地。
They argued the previous owner used to keep six cars and a boat on it and that their neighbours did not use the land.
4. 邻居认为，他们行使通行权，借用这里已经够20年，满足法律要求年限，使得这一通行权不可被撤销。
But neighbours claimed prescriptive rights over the land after saying they had exercised a right of way on it for 20 years, the period required under the 1832 Prescription Act.
5. 法院认为，屋主妨碍了邻居的通行权(rights of way),判决其拆除庭院，恢复路面原状
Judges at the High Court ruled the Taylors must dig up their patio, remove the gateposts and fencing, and reinstate the road surface.
Amanda Tipples QC, deputy judge of the Chancery Division, said the ‘giant’ patio was a ‘substantial interference’ with other residents’ rights of way – and the Taylors had failed to show consideration for them.
6. 屋主花了20，0000英镑打官司，熟了之后灰常伤心
Legal costs of fighting the case have left the Taylors ￡200,000 worse off.
Last night friends of Mrs Taylor, 62, said she and her 65-year-old husband were ‘heartbroken and devastated’ over the ruling.
7. 最受欢迎的评论一面倒的支持判决
A cheeky attempt at a land grab at the expense of their neighbours - GREED!
无耻的行为，抢占路面，邻居受损 - 贪婪！
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ ... ant-patio-road.html
为什么我脑海中出现的是诸多看了网络上国外土地私有上通天下及矿想咋的就咋地之后出去买房的一些国人的身影{:soso_e127:} {:soso_e127:} {:soso_e127:}
为什么，这是为什么捏？
PS：里面涉及的地役权easement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement
判决的依据
No claim which may be lawfully made at the common law, by custom, prescription, or grant, to any way or other easement, or to any watercourse, or the use of any water, to be enjoyed or derived upon, over, or from any land or water of our said lord the King, or being parcel of the duchy of Lancaster or of the duchy of Cornwall, or being the property of any ecclesiastical or lay person, or body corporate, when such way or other matter as herein last before mentioned shall have been actually enjoyed by any person claiming right thereto without interruption for the full period of twenty years, shall be defeated or destroyed by showing only that such way or other matter was first enjoyed at any time prior to such period of twenty years, but nevertheless such claim may be defeated in any other way by which the same is now liable to be defeated; and where such way or other matter as herein last before mentioned shall have been so enjoyed as aforesaid for the full period of forty years, the right thereto shall be deemed absolute and indefeasible, unless it shall appear that the same was enjoyed by some consent or agreement expressly given or made for that purpose by deed or writing.
http://legislation.data.gov.uk/u ... /data.htm?wrap=true
article-2612615-1D54115500000578-358_634x383.jpg (54.4 KB, 下载次数: 1)
下载附件 保存到相册
Battleground: The disputed private cul-de-sac in Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, where the drama unfolded
事发地，死胡同，屋主买了尽头的屋子，同时买下了屋前停着两辆车的地
article-2612615-1D54114900000578-749_634x537.jpg (75.72 KB, 下载次数: 1)
下载附件 保存到相册
Retreat: A builder begins to take down the gateposts before the offending patio is ripped up
开始拆柱子了
这个是今天《每日邮报》很火的一个新闻。事实大概如下：
1. 屋子的主人买下了屋子和屋前的地，修了一个小庭院
The Taylors bought the disputed land when they purchased Villa Sogno seven years ago, and they had always used it as a driveway.
It seemed the perfect addition to their ￡1million home.
Trevor and Carolyn Taylor were delighted with their new patio, laid in slabs of finest Indian sandstone at the front of their property – named Villa Sogno, Italian for Dream House.
2. 邻居觉得，不能够借屋主家门前的地，倒车困难了
It meant cars had limited space to move at the end of the 100ft road, forcing drivers to perform multi-point turns to manoeuvre their way out of the leafy close.
3. 屋主辩称前任主人在前面停了六辆车和一艘小船，邻居们压根没有使用这块地。
They argued the previous owner used to keep six cars and a boat on it and that their neighbours did not use the land.
4. 邻居认为，他们行使通行权，借用这里已经够20年，满足法律要求年限，使得这一通行权不可被撤销。
But neighbours claimed prescriptive rights over the land after saying they had exercised a right of way on it for 20 years, the period required under the 1832 Prescription Act.
5. 法院认为，屋主妨碍了邻居的通行权(rights of way),判决其拆除庭院，恢复路面原状
Judges at the High Court ruled the Taylors must dig up their patio, remove the gateposts and fencing, and reinstate the road surface.
Amanda Tipples QC, deputy judge of the Chancery Division, said the ‘giant’ patio was a ‘substantial interference’ with other residents’ rights of way – and the Taylors had failed to show consideration for them.
6. 屋主花了20，0000英镑打官司，熟了之后灰常伤心
Legal costs of fighting the case have left the Taylors ￡200,000 worse off.
Last night friends of Mrs Taylor, 62, said she and her 65-year-old husband were ‘heartbroken and devastated’ over the ruling.
7. 最受欢迎的评论一面倒的支持判决
A cheeky attempt at a land grab at the expense of their neighbours - GREED!
无耻的行为，抢占路面，邻居受损 - 贪婪！
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ ... ant-patio-road.html
为什么我脑海中出现的是诸多看了网络上国外土地私有上通天下及矿想咋的就咋地之后出去买房的一些国人的身影{:soso_e127:} {:soso_e127:} {:soso_e127:}
为什么，这是为什么捏？
PS：里面涉及的地役权easement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement
判决的依据
No claim which may be lawfully made at the common law, by custom, prescription, or grant, to any way or other easement, or to any watercourse, or the use of any water, to be enjoyed or derived upon, over, or from any land or water of our said lord the King, or being parcel of the duchy of Lancaster or of the duchy of Cornwall, or being the property of any ecclesiastical or lay person, or body corporate, when such way or other matter as herein last before mentioned shall have been actually enjoyed by any person claiming right thereto without interruption for the full period of twenty years, shall be defeated or destroyed by showing only that such way or other matter was first enjoyed at any time prior to such period of twenty years, but nevertheless such claim may be defeated in any other way by which the same is now liable to be defeated; and where such way or other matter as herein last before mentioned shall have been so enjoyed as aforesaid for the full period of forty years, the right thereto shall be deemed absolute and indefeasible, unless it shall appear that the same was enjoyed by some consent or agreement expressly given or made for that purpose by deed or writing.
http://legislation.data.gov.uk/u ... /data.htm?wrap=true
涉及地役权的事情在农村地区多了去了，只是国内很少通过司法途径解决。
涉及地役权的事情在农村地区多了去了，只是国内很少通过司法途径解决。
观棋柯烂 发表于 2014-4-25 18:33
涉及地役权的事情在农村地区多了去了，只是国内很少通过司法途径解决。
国内的，我只是在《民法原论》教科书里面读到过比较简略的介绍，实践中还真没有接触过。
涉及地役权的事情在农村地区多了去了，只是国内很少通过司法途径解决。
国内的，我只是在《民法原论》教科书里面读到过比较简略的介绍，实践中还真没有接触过。
所以说封建独裁是原罪
独裁下，即使你做的再对，也不会信任你，所有问题矛头全指向你
民主下，即使政府做的再错，打的是选民的脸，选民不满，就要求政府下台
至于法律，独裁下政府裁判队员一起当，还要控制媒体，不让人说话，简直就没法让人信任。有的只有矛盾的积聚
民主下，法院一切按法律来，理直气壮，不服你去主流媒体辩论评理好了，
所以说封建独裁是原罪
独裁下，即使你做的再对，也不会信任你，所有问题矛头全指向你
民主下，即使政府做的再错，打的是选民的脸，选民不满，就要求政府下台
至于法律，独裁下政府裁判队员一起当，还要控制媒体，不让人说话，简直就没法让人信任。有的只有矛盾的积聚
民主下，法院一切按法律来，理直气壮，不服你去主流媒体辩论评理好了，
LS这话去乌克兰说说。。或者去台湾说都可以
cubezero3 发表于 2014-4-25 18:44
国内的，我只是在《民法原论》教科书里面读到过比较简略的介绍，实践中还真没有接触过。
早就有《土地他项权利证明书》的，地役权可以登记。《物权法》出台以后，地役权作为用益物权的一种就更明确了。
不过通常都用不太到，特别是农村地区。还是依照传统习惯、道德为主，出现纠纷，则进行协商或调解，然后才会有协议。
国内的，我只是在《民法原论》教科书里面读到过比较简略的介绍，实践中还真没有接触过。
早就有《土地他项权利证明书》的，地役权可以登记。《物权法》出台以后，地役权作为用益物权的一种就更明确了。
不过通常都用不太到，特别是农村地区。还是依照传统习惯、道德为主，出现纠纷，则进行协商或调解，然后才会有协议。
霏菲飞 发表于 2014-4-25 19:08
LS这话去乌克兰说说。。或者去台湾说都可以
我顶
乌克兰，我不知道
湾湾
这些日子，看了很多很多湾湾的新闻，包括湾湾的政论节目，
说律法，笑死人 了。
不过，我想按一般的想法，那个屋主花了那么多钱打官司，还输了，估计这裁判所能弄出了足够的律法依据吧，要知道拿那么前的律师可不好对付。
霏菲飞 发表于 2014-4-25 19:08
LS这话去乌克兰说说。。或者去台湾说都可以
我顶
乌克兰，我不知道
湾湾
这些日子，看了很多很多湾湾的新闻，包括湾湾的政论节目，
说律法，笑死人 了。
不过，我想按一般的想法，那个屋主花了那么多钱打官司，还输了，估计这裁判所能弄出了足够的律法依据吧，要知道拿那么前的律师可不好对付。
从来就没有过“我的地我想干什么就干什么”的道理，不知道哪些人这么想...那真是够愚蠢的。
general_j 发表于 2014-4-26 02:16
从来就没有过“我的地我想干什么就干什么”的道理，不知道哪些人这么想...那真是够愚蠢的。
我想起了英剧《飞天大盗Hustle》中的一句话
You want something for nothing, we give you nothing for something.
你想空手套白狼，我们让你喂狼。
从来就没有过“我的地我想干什么就干什么”的道理，不知道哪些人这么想...那真是够愚蠢的。
我想起了英剧《飞天大盗Hustle》中的一句话
You want something for nothing, we give you nothing for something.
你想空手套白狼，我们让你喂狼。