ABSTRACT
CHARACTERISTICS OF AN EASEMENT Re Ellenborough Park (1956) i) The dominant and servient tenement must be owned by two different people ii) The easement must accommodate the dominant tenement iii) There must be a dominant and servient tenement iv) The right must be capable of forming the subject-matter of a grant Hill v Tupper (1863) A right unconnected with the use of land cannot be an easement Moody v Steggles (1879) A benefit to land can include business use if it benefits the land, not the business Copeland v Greenhalf (1952) Rights amounting to possession of land cannot be easements Wright v Macadam (1949) A right of storage can exist an an easement London & Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd (1992) The right to park can exist as an easement Moncrieff v Jamieson and others (2007) A right of vehicular access may carry with it a right to park if it was necessary for the enjoyment of the easement Greatorex v Newman (2008) A right of way created for business premises over residential property was limited to the owner and it did not automatically confer rights for customers except in an emergency Virdi v Chana and another (2008) An easement must not prevent any use by the landowner of his land but an easement may be upheld even if it severely limits the potential use of a landowner’s property
IMPLIED EASEMENTS
The rule in Wheeldon v Burrows Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) A quasi-easement can be converted into an easement if it is continuous and apparent and it is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property and in use at the time of grant
s62 LPA 1925 International Tea Stores v Hobbs (1903) Licences can be converted into easements on the conveyance of land Goldberg v Edwards (1950) Any right for the benefit of land can pass as an easement under s 62
COMMON INTENTION Wong v Beaumont Property Trust Ltd (1965) The trust will imply an easement to give effect to the common intention of the parties
l a n d l a w
PRESCRIPTION Mills v Silver (1991) An easement can arise under prescription if: i) the use of the land is without force, secrecy or permission; ii) it is enjoyed by a fee simple owner against another fee simple owner; iii) the use is continuous
Union Lighterage Company v London Graving Dock Company (1902) An easement through prescription will not arise unless the use is open
EXCESSIVE USE Jelbert v Davis (1968) If increased use is excessive than it will be restrained British Railways Board v Glass (1965) Increased use of a right is lawful if it is contemplated at the grant
NECESSITY Barry v Haseldine (1952) The court will imply an easement of necessity if the land does not have an independent right of access Wheeler v JJ Saunders (1995) A claim for an easement of necessity will fail if there is an alternative means of access Stafford v Lee (1993) An easement of necessity could be implied for woodland where the original deed showed the land could be used for housing
Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131
A number of owners of land claimed that the right to enjoy a piece of neighbouring land for leisure purposes could exist as an easement.
