ER Ives Investment Ltd v High [1967] 2 QB 379

Foundations of flats encroached on a neighbour’s land. The owners agreed that the foundations could remain in return for access across the yard behind the flats. The neighbour later built a garage reachable only over that yard and contributed to resurfacing costs. Successive owners knew about the arrangements, and the later purchase referred to the access as enjoyed. The new owner sought to restrain the neighbour’s use, relying in part on the absence of registration of the asserted right. The dispute concerned the reciprocal arrangement, subsequent reliance and the equitable answer to the injunction claim.

Could the purchaser prohibit access while retaining the benefit of encroaching foundations, given the reciprocal agreement, later reliance and the absence of registration of the asserted right?

The Court of Appeal protected the neighbour’s access. The arrangement involved reciprocal benefits, and the claimant sought to retain the advantage of the encroaching foundations while rejecting the associated access obligation. The garage works, expenditure and acquiescence also supported an estoppel response. The judges’ explanations of the relationship between that equity and land-charges registration should be distinguished rather than compressed into a general notice rule. The case did not establish that any unregistered easement survives whenever a purchaser knows of it. It concerned the particular reciprocal bargain and reliance which made the attempt to prohibit the established access inequitable. The reciprocal arrangement was central.

Reciprocal arrangements and detrimental reliance may create an equitable answer where an owner seeks to retain a benefit while repudiating the associated land-use obligation. Ives must not be generalised into a rule that notice alone validates every unregistered easement.

Ives brings together proprietary estoppel, reciprocal benefits and registration. Its facts are distinctive because the owner retained physical foundations on the neighbour’s land while challenging the promised access. The differing judicial analyses require care, particularly in modern registered-land problems. Compare Binions and Ashburn on separate equitable obligations, without treating broad unconscionability as an unrestricted alternative to statutory priority rules. The underlying transaction remains decisive.