Cases

Question 1

Re Ellenborough park

Answer 1

held that a right to use a neighbouring garden accommodated the dominant tenement, a residential property. Held that a right amounts to an easement if it satisfies 4 requirements: there is a dominant and servient tenement; the dominant and servient owners are different people; the right accommodates the dominant tenement and the right is capable of forming the subject matter of a grant

Question 2

Moody v streggles

Answer 2

The right accommodates the dominant tenement case: the high court held that a right to hang a sign bearing its name on adjoining premises accommodated the dominant tenement, a pub

Question 3

Regency villas v diamond resorts

Answer 3

the right to use facilities took effect as easements.

Question 4

Copeland v Greenhalf

Answer 4

The right is capable of forming the subject matter of a grant case: No easement could exist to store the tools of the trade on the trade on the servient land - right if requirement not satisfied.

Question 5

Grigsby v Melville

Answer 5

A right of unlimited storage within a cellar could not be accepted

Question 6

Hanina v Morland

Answer 6

The right to use the flat roof of neighbouring land could not be an easement because it was equivalent to ownership

Question 7

London and Blenheim estates

Answer 7

Held that a right would be too extensive if “in relation to the area over which it is to be exercisable it would leave the servient owner without any reasonable use of his land”.

Question 8

Moncrieff v Jamieson

Answer 8

The reasonable test was highly criticised and an alternative test of whether the servient owner retains possession and control of the land over which the right is exercisable was put forward

Question 9

Jones v price

Answer 9

It was held that a right requiring a servient owner to maintain a boundary fencer is a valid easement

Question 10

Wheeldon v burrows

Answer 10

The case established one of the three current methods by which an easement can be acquired by implied grant, and has effectively been put into statutory force by section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Necessity case: a quasi easement is an easement shaped practice where X engages in pre transfer when they own and occupy the whole of the land. It is a practice that would qualify as an easement if the land were in separate ownership/occupation. Doesn’t need to be continuous but must be obvious - Borman v Griffith