Easements And Profits Flashcards
Phipps v Pears [1964]
C claimed an easement protecting one house from rain and frost by another house.
Meant that the other house could not be demolished.
Claim rejected.
The courts are reluctant to allow the creation of new negative easements which would be an undue restriction on an owner’s rights over his own land.
Hill v Tupper (1863)
The owner of a canal granted X the exclusive right to put pleasure boats on the canal for profit.
Held: Such a right is just a personal right which did not benefit the LAND.
Eg X claims a right of way over land owned by Y but Y’s land is two miles away. Although it may benefit X to have the right of way, it can hardly be said to benefit X’s land.
Section 62(1) , Law of Property Act 1925
A conveyance of the land shall be deemed to convey and shall operate to convey with the land all privileges, easements, rights appertaining or reputed to appertain to the land at the time of the conveyance.
Controversial: Used to create easements where none seemed to exist before.
Wright v McAdam [1949]
The defendant let a flat to the claimant and gave her permission (i.e. a licence) to store coal in it. He later granted her a new tenancy.
Principle: The grant of the tenancy was a conveyance under section 62(1)
New tenancy had the effect of converting what was a licence into an easement.
Alford v Hannaford [2011]
A transfer of land also granted a right of way along a track between farmland purchased and that already owned ‘at all times and for all purposes with or without vehicles to pass and repass over and along the track’.
The purchaser claimed that by the operation of section 62 of the LPA 1925 this also included a right to drive animals along the track.
Held: Section 62(1) did not apply as the language of the grant was clear and so there was no reason to extend it to include a right for animals to pass along the track.
Wheeldon v Burrows did not apply as there was no evidence that the track had been used by animals before the transfer.
