Easements Flashcards
Hawkins v Rutter
Easements cannot exist ‘in gross’; there needs to be a DT and a ST
London & Blenheim v Ladbrooke (DT/ST)
Creation of an easement with just a benefit is not possible
Hill v Tupper
novel rights cannot attach to the land
Wall v Collins
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)
Re Ellenborough
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
Moody v Streggles
Can have an easement to hang an advert for pub next door - benefits the business of the pub so it benefits the land
Blenheim Estates
Easement to allow shopping trolleys across land benefits DT’s land as a supermarket
Re Alfred
‘right to a good view’ = too vague
Hunter v Canary Wharf
‘uninterrupted TV reception’ = too vague
Browne v Flower
privacy = too vague
Moncrieff v Johnson (in passing)
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)
Duke of Westminster v Guild
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’)
Jones v Price
historical exception (easement of fencing)
Moncrief v Johnson (ouster principle)
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
Copeland v Greenhalf
easement to store tools on ST land is invalid
Batchelor v Marlow
parking (following Copeland) cannot be an easement
McAdams House v Robinson
1) radical change in the character/identity of land?
2) Substantial increase or alteration of burden on ST?
Harris v Flower
Owner of DT cannot use easement to access another one of his own lands
Re MRA Engineering
threshold for implied easement (necessity) is very high
a real necessity must exist
Manjang v Drammeh
Owner could access the land by boat = not necessity therefore!
- very high threshold (e.g. landlocked)
Walby v Walby
very strict test
- without easement, the land could not be used at all
Walby v Walby
very strict test
- without easement, the land could not be used at all
Pwlbach Colliery v Woodman
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)
Stafford v Lee
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
Wheeldon v Burrows
‘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
Alfred v Hannaford
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
Borman v Griffith
For it to be ‘reasonably necessary’ in quasi easements it need not be a necessity
