Is [1965] 2 Q.B. 618 still good law?

This case has been given negative treatment in 1 later judgment(s) in this dataset (e.g. doubted or not followed), so its authority may be qualified — verify before relying on it.

How many times has [1965] 2 Q.B. 618 been cited?

[1965] 2 Q.B. 618 is cited by 3 judgment(s) in this dataset.

[1965] 2 Q.B. 618

· cited by 3 · influence score 14/100

Is it still good law? ⚠️ This case has negative treatment (1 citation(s): e.g. doubted / not followed / overruled). Check carefully before relying on it.

How to cite

[1965] 2 Q.B. 618

Neutral citation format (OSCOLA). Always confirm against the official judgment.

Treatment

Cited · 2Doubted · 1

Citation network

Cited by (3)

Cited — Churston Golf Club Ltd v Haddock 2019-04-03
“…, 279) as a spurious easement, can arise by prescription or lost modern grant: "in theory, it is capable of being created by covenant or grant": Jones v. Price [1965] 2 Q.B. 618, 639, per Diplock L.J. True, its positive character (hence Gale's epithet "spurious") creates difficulties (see Austerberry v. Oldham Corporation (1885) 29 Ch.…”
Cited — Churston Golf Club Ltd v Haddock 2019-04-03
“…, 279) as a spurious easement, can arise by prescription or lost modern grant: "in theory, it is capable of being created by covenant or grant": Jones v. Price [1965] 2 Q.B. 618, 639, per Diplock L.J. True, its positive character (hence Gale's epithet "spurious") creates difficulties (see Austerberry v. Oldham Corporation (1885) 29 Ch.…”
Doubted — Churston Golf Club Ltd v Haddock 2019-04-03
“…f we put aside these questions of theory and turn to the practice of the courts, there seems to be little doubt that fencing is an easement." In Jones v. Price [1965] 2 Q.B. 618, 633, Willmer L.J. said: "It is clear that a right to require the owner of adjoining land to keep the boundary fence in repair is a right which the law will re…”