| R (Sunningwell Parish Council) v Oxfordshire County Council | Prescription prevents disturbance of long-established de facto enjoyment. | Explained the purpose of prescription and the lost-grant doctrine. [14][15] |
| Phillips v Halliday | Long possession may justify presuming a lawful origin where one was possible. | Considered as part of the general rationale for prescription. [16] |
| Dalton v Angus | Prescription rests on acquiescence, requiring knowledge, power to prevent the use, and failure to exercise that power. | Supported the conclusion that acquiescence and grant-capacity are interconnected. [17][18][19][20] |
| Daniel v North | A presumption of grant requires use against a person capable of making the grant. | Supported the focus on the legal capacity of the servient owner during the relevant use. [21][22][23][24] |
| Barker v Richardson | A grant by a person lacking power to bind successors is invalid. | Demonstrated that incapacity during the relevant period prevents acquisition of an easement. [25][26][27][24] |
| Bright v Walker | Use against a limited interest does not affect the fee simple. | Supported the distinction between use against a limited owner and use against the fee simple owner. [28] |
| Roberts v James | No prescriptive right arises where, throughout the period of use, no person could make the use lawful. | Considered inconsistent with presuming a grant before the use began and treated as particularly significant authority against the tribunals’ approach. [29][30][31][32][24] |
| Pugh v Savage | A tenancy arising after the commencement of use does not necessarily prevent acquisition of an easement. | Supported the importance of the legal status of the servient owner when use begins and left unresolved a broader issue concerning later incapacity. [33][34][24][35] |
| Cross v Lewis | A distinction may be drawn between incapacity existing when use begins and incapacity arising later. | Helped explain why the Court did not decide the broader issue concerning use beginning against a competent grantor. [33][35] |
| Williams v Sandy Lane (Chester) Ltd | Refined the principle stated in Pugh v Savage. | The refinement was said not to directly affect the issue in this appeal. [36][37] |
| Rochdale Canal Co v Radcliffe | Use cannot establish an easement where the grant would have been ultra vires. | Supported the rule that a grant must be capable of being lawfully made. [38][39][40][41] |
| Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Navigation v Birmingham Canal Navigations | Length of use cannot create a right where an express grant would have been ultra vires. | Applied as authority that a fictional grant cannot be presumed where statutory powers do not permit the grant. [42][43][44][45] |
| Neaverson v Peterborough Rural District Council | A lost grant cannot be presumed if it could not have had a legal origin. | Supported refusal of a claim contrary to an absolute statutory prohibition. [46][47][48] |
| Oakley v Boston | Required statutory consent cannot be presumed without evidence supporting that consent. | Applied by analogy because no Charity Commission consent or court order could be presumed. [49][50][51][52][13][53] |
| Housden v Conservators of Wimbledon Common | No fictional grant can be presumed where an express grant would exceed statutory powers. | Reinforced the statutory-capacity principle. [45][54] |
| Angus v Dalton | Considered in relation to the presumption of lost grant after long enjoyment. | The Court held that it did not decide whether a grant could predate the use relied upon. [55][56][57][58][32] |
| Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District v Croydon Corporation | General judicial statements must be read in the context of the facts decided. | Used to limit the literal reach of the formulation in Tehidy Minerals. [59] |
| Quinn v Leathem | A case is authority only for what it actually decides. | Supported treating the wider statement in Tehidy Minerals as obiter. [60][61] |
| Palmer v Guadagni | Particulars may be required concerning the date and legal circumstances of an alleged lost grant. | The pleading decision supported examining whether a competent grantor existed during the period of use. [62][63] |
| Tremayne v English Clays Lovering Pochin & Co Ltd | Particulars may identify dates on which statutory restrictions affected an alleged grant. | Provided further support for focusing on legal capacity during the proven use. [64] |
| Tehidy Minerals Ltd v Norman | Long uninterrupted use may justify a presumed grant made before the end of the minimum prescriptive period. | The Court held that the relevant grant in that case fell within the period of use; the wider interpretation adopted below was obiter and expressed too broadly. [65][66][67][68][32][69][70] |
| Bakewell Management Ltd v Brandwood | Cited for its treatment of Tehidy Minerals. | The Court noted that a material passage from Tehidy Minerals had been omitted in the quotation relied upon. [58] |
| Smith v Brudenell-Bruce | Considered the timing of a presumed grant in relation to actual use. | Supported the Court’s conclusion that the relevant period is tied to proven use. [24] |
| Halliday v Phillips | A lost faculty may be presumed despite an initially defective origin where a later validating event is possible. | Supported the view that a presumed legal origin may arise after use begins, not before any use exists. [71][72][73][74][75] |
| A-G v Horner (No 2) | The presumed legal origin must correspond to the essential features of the proved use. | Supported the requirement of a link between the use and the presumed grant. [76][77] |
| Goodman v Saltash Corporation | The whole character and conditions of longstanding use should be considered. | Cited within A-G v Horner (No 2) in support of reconstructing the legal origin from the proved usage. [76] |
| Wheaton v Maple & Co | A grant cannot predate the existence of the use or subject requiring protection. | Supported the conclusion that the presumed grant must be connected to the use relied upon. [78][79][80][81] |
| Barton v Church Commissioners for England | Acquiescence by an owner capable of making the grant lies at the root of prescription. | Supported the conclusion that capacity and acquiescence are intertwined. [82][83] |
| China Field Ltd v Appeal Tribunal (Buildings) | The presumption may be rebutted by proof that the servient owner was incapable of granting throughout the period of use. | Supported the Court’s formulation of the relevant period. [84][85] |
| R (Newhaven Port & Properties Ltd) v East Sussex CC | The capacity of the servient owner is relevant to prescriptive acquisition. | Considered in relation to the unresolved question of use beginning against a competent grantor and continuing against an incompetent one. [86][54][87][35] |