Easements Flashcards
Re Ellenborough Park 1956
criteria to identify an easement
- DT and ST
- DO and SO must be different people
- must accommodate DT
- the right must be capable of forming the subject matter of a grant
Woodmant v Pwllbach Colliery 1914
ST not properly identified
London & Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke Retail Parks 1994
DT not properly specified
Hill v Tupper 1863
pleasure boats, the easement must benefit the land
Moody v Steggles 1879
benefiting business on DT held to accommodate DT
Copland v Greenhalf 1952
just because he use is business use does not prevent a right from being an easement
Clapman v Edwards 1938
a right to advertise on ST not specifically to advertise DT not an easement
Bailey v Stephens 1862
proximity necessary for easements
Todrick v Western National Omnibus 1934
intervening land not fatal
Harris v Flower 1904
a right of way cannot be used to get to another piece of your land that is not ST
Re William Aldred 1610
nice view not an easement
Browne v Flower 1904
privacy not an easement
Wright v Macadam 1949
coal shed - use of s62 plus exclusivity
Batchelor v Marlow 2000
parking: the test is - are you ousting SO from his property rights?
Moncrieff v Jamieson 2007
Scottish parking - does the SO retain possession and control of ST?
Virdi v Chana 2008
planting trees on ST where parking - still counts as retaining control
Phipps v Pears 1965
no easement of protection of a house from demolishing
Manjang v Drammeh 1991
high degree of necessity required - the river case
Nickerson v Barraclough 1981
doctrine of necessity founded on the implication of circumstances, not public policy
Rudd v Bowles 1912
4 houses case, implied grant of a right of way into a transaction
Wong v Beaumont 1965
duct needed for the business on DT to continue
Stafford v Lee 1992
test for degree of necessity: common intention and reasonably necessary
Wheeldon v Burrows 1879
no derogation from one’s grant
Milkman v Ellis 1995
case where without an easement it would be dangerous to access the highway
Wheeler v Saunders 1995
access retained from the minor road, no easement under Wheeldon as not necessary
Mills v Silver 1991
right to use by modern lost grant, but not to improve
London Tara Hotel v Kensington Close Hotel 2011
no permissive user, no prescription
Risegold Ltd v Escala Ltd 2008
right to repair and maintenance could include access to build a new house on DT because common intention
Alford v Hannaford 2011
right to pass does not include kettle as there was a reservation to specifically drive animals
Dutta v Hayes 2012
agricultural use has a meaning in law that doesn’t include stud business
White v Grand Hotel Eastbourne 1913
greatly increased use of way doesn’t mean SO can restrict it
Todrick v Western National Omnibus 1934
ramp case - right of way for buses not implied in the right of way
BR Board v Glass 1965
caravan side expanded and so did the use of way; held not excessive
Jelbert v Davis 1968
proposed change of use of farm land to allow more than 200 caravans to excessive, the test is - did the user go beyond anything contemplated at the time of grant
McAdams v Robinson 2005
test: SO can only object to a radical change in character or in identity of DT, resulting in a substantial increase/alteration of burden on ST
Dewan v Lewis 2010
look at the actual use in the prescriptive easements cases
Benn v Hardinge 1992
non-user for 175 years not enough to extinguish a right of way
Dwyer v Westminster CC 2014
more than 40 years of non-use by CC, Dwyer put up locks and stuff, held to be too short to prove abandonment
end of an easement
- operation of law
- unity of fee simple ownership
- by statute
- express or implied release by DO
- abandonment: non-user plus intention to relinquish the right
extent of express easements
depends on words used, also intention
extent of implied grant easements
the right is such as is necessary for reasonable enjoyment
extent of prescriptive easements
at use to which ST has been put and what SO has tolerated
