8. Easements Flashcards
Hill v Tupper
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
Moody v Steggles
Right to hang sign for a pub on another’s property held to accommodate dominant tenement
William Aldred’s Case
There can be no easement giving the right to enjoy scenic view
Borman v Griffith
Rights of way
Requirement that the easement be necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of land is deemed satisfied if it enhances enjoyment of land
Colls v Home and Colonial Stores
Rights of light
Race v Ward
Rights to water in defined channel
Dalton v Angus
Rights to support
Atwood v Bovis Homes
Rights of drainage + other rights of ‘pipeline’, e.g. gas
Re Ellenborough Park
- There must be a dominant and servient tenement
- The right must accommodate the dominant tenement
- Diversity of ownership
- The right must lie in grant
Right to use a pleasure ground in front of houses held to benefit the dominant tenements
Dyce v Lady James Hay
New positive easement may be recognised by analogy
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Courts unlikely to recognise a new negative easements
Regis v Redman
Claim to supply of hot water was not an easement
Rance v Elvin
Easement of right to passage of water through pipes recognised, even tho this would require dominant to pay bills also on behalf of servient
Jones v Pritchard
Dominant tenement owner has right to enter servient land to effect repairs
Copeland v Greenhalf
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
Batchelor v Marlow
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
Wright v Macadam (Scottish case)
Proposes new test based on ‘possession and control’ instead of ‘ouster principle’ and ‘reasonable use’ test
Kettel v Bloomfold
Batchelor has not been overruled – reasonable use test still applies
Green v Ashco Horticultural
If dominant must seek fresh permission every time he wishes to exercise right, it cannot be an easement
Cordell v Second Clanfield Properties
Where easement has been expressly reserved, it will be construed strictly against person who has reserved the right
Manjang v Drammeh
No easement of necessity will be inferred if there is some other means of access to that land, even if difficult and inconvenient
Wong v Beaumont Properties
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
Wheeldon v Burrow
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
- Continuous and apparent
- Necessary to reasonable enjoyment of DT
- In use at date of transfer
Pyer v Carter
Apparent = must be discoverable or detectable from careful inspection of land by person ordinarily conversant with subject
Wheeler v JJ Saunders
Right of access through servient land not ‘necessary’ in this sense, since there was an alternative access
Payne v Inwood
There must be diversity of ownership/occupation of dominant and servient tenements prior to conveyance
Platt v Crouch
No requirement for prior diversity if right is continuous and apparent
Mercer v Liverpool
Legal easements (whether arising through express or implied modes of acquisition) are rights in rem and bind the whole world
Purgh v Savage
Sufficient proximity
