Easements Flashcards
Hawkins v Rutter
Easements cannot exist in gross, they run with the land
Re Ellenborough Park
Four essential characteristics of easements, which are subject to judicial discretion - 1. Must be dominant/servient tenement, 2. Separation of dominant and servient tenement, 3. The alleged easement must benefit the dominant tenement, 4. Must be capable of forming the subject matter of a grant
Wright v Macadam
Tenements must not be owned AND occupied by the same persons, if this happens the easement is extinguished
Canham v Fisk
If the d/s tenements come into the same occupation not ownership then the easement is suspended and can be revived later on
Hill v Tupper
The easement must confer a benefit on the land in some way and must not be purely personal
Re Aldred
Lawrence v Fen Tigers
Rights granted by easements must be sufficiently clear and certain - ‘a good view’ was insufficiently precise
Browne v Flower
There is no easement to privacy
Phipps v Pears
It is unlikely hat a court will uphold an easement requiring the ST to spend money or anything too burdensome – here it was to prevent him demolishing his premises
Moncrieff v Jamieson
Easements should not create positive obligations, so, for example, a right to use a swimming pool could probably never qualify due to the maintenance
Crow v Wood
Easement of fencing - exception to no positive obligation of easements
Copeland v Greehalf
An easement is not a right of ownership and, if the DT wanted more control, they should have bargained for a lease
Batchelor v Marlowe
The ‘reasonable use test’ as regards whether an easement can be allowed or not - questioned by L Scott in Moncrief but not overruled
Walsh v Lonsdale
Forms of written contract that equity recognises cf s2 LPA 1989
Ives v High
Oral agreements can only give rise to an easement if the actions amount to an estoppel
Legal easements expressly created
Must be on the register against the ST ss25 and 27 and Sched 2 LRA 2002
Chauhary v Yavuz
Para 3 Sched 3 of the LRA is limited to LEGAL easements, and it is very unlikely that under para 2 an equitable easement would be in ‘discoverable actual occupation’ of the ST - therefore, an equitable easement will only survive a transfer if it is entered on the register as an Agreed or Unilateral Notice against the ST
CP Holdings v Dugdale
Express grant of an easement i.e. A grants B a right of way over A’s land
Hillman v Rogers
Where A sells/leases part of his land to B and includes an easement, e.g. water pipes, then A will become ST and B DT
Where no easement would render land useless, the courts will usually imply one
Re MRA Engineering
An implied grant of an easement must indeed be necessary, although when it is clearly so it will usually be implied
Walby v Walby
The test of whether an easement should be implied is unconcerned with reasonable enjoyment - it is a strict test which will only succeed when the land cannot be used at all
Re Dodd
Implied reservations are quite rare as the seller had it in his power to expressly reserve an easement and the courts therefore ‘lean against the seller’
Davis v Bramwell
Implied grant by common intention - same as the other implied doctrines except that here it does not have to be necessary to use the land
Wheeldon v Burrows
Implied grants (not reservations) for the purchaser which are implied from the context of the sale - i.e. rights in the nature of easements that the seller enjoyed and used prior to the transfer for the benefit of the part transferred
Kent v Kavanagh
There must be common ownership of the land in its entirety prior to the W v B rule being triggered
