8. Easements

Question 1

Hill v Tupper

Answer 1

Right to keep boats in canal next to property for purpose of running a boat hire business held to benefit only the business and not land

Question 2

Moody v Steggles

Answer 2

Right to hang sign for a pub on another’s property held to accommodate dominant tenement

Question 3

William Aldred’s Case

Answer 3

There can be no easement giving the right to enjoy scenic view

Question 4

Borman v Griffith

Answer 4

Rights of way

Requirement that the easement be necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of land is deemed satisfied if it enhances enjoyment of land

Question 5

Colls v Home and Colonial Stores

Answer 5

Rights of light

Question 6

Race v Ward

Answer 6

Rights to water in defined channel

Question 7

Dalton v Angus

Answer 7

Rights to support

Question 8

Atwood v Bovis Homes

Answer 8

Rights of drainage + other rights of ‘pipeline’, e.g. gas

Question 9

Re Ellenborough Park

Answer 9

1. There must be a dominant and servient tenement
2. The right must accommodate the dominant tenement
3. Diversity of ownership
4. The right must lie in grant

Right to use a pleasure ground in front of houses held to benefit the dominant tenements

Question 9

Dyce v Lady James Hay

Answer 9

New positive easement may be recognised by analogy

Question 11

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 11

Courts unlikely to recognise a new negative easements

Question 12

Regis v Redman

Answer 12

Claim to supply of hot water was not an easement

Question 13

Rance v Elvin

Answer 13

Easement of right to passage of water through pipes recognised, even tho this would require dominant to pay bills also on behalf of servient

Question 14

Jones v Pritchard

Answer 14

Dominant tenement owner has right to enter servient land to effect repairs

Question 15

Copeland v Greenhalf

Answer 15

Right to store vehicles awaiting repairs on another’s land held to amount to exclusive possession and therefore not an easement

‘Ouster principle’ – this amounted to ouster of servient owner from beneficial enjoyment of her land

Question 16

Batchelor v Marlow

Answer 16

Right to park 6 cars Monday-Friday from 8.30 to 6 would deprive servient owner of ‘reasonable use’ of land – cannot be an easement

Question 17

Wright v Macadam (Scottish case)

Answer 17

Proposes new test based on ‘possession and control’ instead of ‘ouster principle’ and ‘reasonable use’ test

Question 18

Kettel v Bloomfold

Answer 18

Batchelor has not been overruled – reasonable use test still applies

Question 19

Green v Ashco Horticultural

Answer 19

If dominant must seek fresh permission every time he wishes to exercise right, it cannot be an easement

Question 20

Cordell v Second Clanfield Properties

Answer 20

Where easement has been expressly reserved, it will be construed strictly against person who has reserved the right

Question 21

Manjang v Drammeh

Answer 21

No easement of necessity will be inferred if there is some other means of access to that land, even if difficult and inconvenient

Question 22

Wong v Beaumont Properties

Answer 22

Land leased for purpose of operating restaurant – lease includes covenants e.g. to eliminate smells and comply with hygiene standards -impossible to do this without ventilation system on L’s adjoining land - held to be an easement

Question 23

Wheeldon v Burrow

Answer 23

Where A sells/leases land to B, B will impliedly acquire as easements all those rights which A had previously exercised (‘quasi-easements’) over the land he retains

1. Continuous and apparent
2. Necessary to reasonable enjoyment of DT
3. In use at date of transfer

Question 24

Pyer v Carter

Answer 24

Apparent = must be discoverable or detectable from careful inspection of land by person ordinarily conversant with subject

Question 25

Wheeler v JJ Saunders

Answer 25

Right of access through servient land not ‘necessary’ in this sense, since there was an alternative access

Question 26

Payne v Inwood

Answer 26

There must be diversity of ownership/occupation of dominant and servient tenements prior to conveyance

Question 27

Platt v Crouch

Answer 27

No requirement for prior diversity if right is continuous and apparent

Question 28

Mercer v Liverpool

Answer 28

Legal easements (whether arising through express or implied modes of acquisition) are rights in rem and bind the whole world

Question 29

Purgh v Savage

Answer 29

Sufficient proximity