Easements

Question 1

Hawkins v Rutter

Answer 1

Easements cannot exist ‘in gross’; there needs to be a DT and a ST

Question 2

London & Blenheim v Ladbrooke (DT/ST)

Answer 2

Creation of an easement with just a benefit is not possible

Question 3

Hill v Tupper

Answer 3

novel rights cannot attach to the land

Question 4

Wall v Collins

Answer 4

It might be that easements are attached to the land and not the easement (leasehold –> freehold, easement stays at least till lease is supposed to have lasted)

Question 5

Re Ellenborough

Answer 5

1) DT and ST
2) DT and ST must be in separate occupation and ownership
3) Easement must accommodate the DT
4) Right must be capable of constituting a subject matter of grant

Question 6

Moody v Streggles

Answer 6

Can have an easement to hang an advert for pub next door - benefits the business of the pub so it benefits the land

Question 7

Blenheim Estates

Answer 7

Easement to allow shopping trolleys across land benefits DT’s land as a supermarket

Question 8

Re Alfred

Answer 8

‘right to a good view’ = too vague

Question 9

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 9

‘uninterrupted TV reception’ = too vague

Question 10

Browne v Flower

Answer 10

privacy = too vague

Question 11

Moncrieff v Johnson (in passing)

Answer 11

No postive burden on ST owner (e.g. could never have an easement to allow use of swimming pool because requires ST to maintain it)

Question 12

Duke of Westminster v Guild

Answer 12

Easement for underground sewer is fine, but ST cannot be forced to maintain - ST must allow DT onto the land to fix it (‘reasonable necessary’)

Question 13

Jones v Price

Answer 13

historical exception (easement of fencing)

Question 14

Moncrief v Johnson (ouster principle)

Answer 14

Scott (wide) - as long as it’s not exclusive possession it’s not infringing Law Com (who said that easement cannot be too extensive because of distinction between easement and possessory rights), still airspace and dig underneath

Neuberger (narrow) - ‘reasonable use’ left of the land

Question 15

Copeland v Greenhalf

Answer 15

easement to store tools on ST land is invalid

Question 16

Batchelor v Marlow

Answer 16

parking (following Copeland) cannot be an easement

Question 17

McAdams House v Robinson

Answer 17

1) radical change in the character/identity of land?

2) Substantial increase or alteration of burden on ST?

Question 18

Harris v Flower

Answer 18

Owner of DT cannot use easement to access another one of his own lands

Question 19

Re MRA Engineering

Answer 19

threshold for implied easement (necessity) is very high

a real necessity must exist

Question 20

Manjang v Drammeh

Answer 20

Owner could access the land by boat = not necessity therefore!
- very high threshold (e.g. landlocked)

Question 21

Walby v Walby

Answer 21

very strict test

- without easement, the land could not be used at all

Question 22

Walby v Walby

Answer 22

very strict test

- without easement, the land could not be used at all

Question 23

Pwlbach Colliery v Woodman

Answer 23

1) Easement is necessary to enjoy right that has been expressly granted (e.g. use of well = access to the well)
2) Easement necessary for dominant owner to use the land for purpose conveyed (e.g. Wong v Beaumont, ventilation for restaurant)

Question 24

Stafford v Lee

Answer 24

Intended easement means there must be a common intention
- point of the grant was to build house, so there is an intended easement that allows materials to build house to be able to get there

Question 25

Wheeldon v Burrows

Answer 25

‘quasi-easements’ given to the new owner

1) must be enjoyed at the time of grant
2) easement must be continuous and apparent
3) must be ‘reasonably necessary’ for enjoyment of land

Question 26

Alfred v Hannaford

Answer 26

Easement must be enjoyed at the time of grant (to claim Wheeldon v Burrows) - C couldn’t claim because no evidence of degree of use of the track

Question 27

Borman v Griffith

Answer 27

For it to be ‘reasonably necessary’ in quasi easements it need not be a necessity