Easements

Question 1

Re Ellenborough Park 1956

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Woodmant v Pwllbach Colliery 1914

Answer 2

ST not properly identified

Question 3

London & Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke Retail Parks 1994

Answer 3

DT not properly specified

Question 4

Hill v Tupper 1863

Answer 4

pleasure boats, the easement must benefit the land

Question 5

Moody v Steggles 1879

Answer 5

benefiting business on DT held to accommodate DT

Question 6

Copland v Greenhalf 1952

Answer 6

just because he use is business use does not prevent a right from being an easement

Question 7

Clapman v Edwards 1938

Answer 7

a right to advertise on ST not specifically to advertise DT not an easement

Question 8

Bailey v Stephens 1862

Answer 8

proximity necessary for easements

Question 9

Todrick v Western National Omnibus 1934

Answer 9

intervening land not fatal

Question 10

Harris v Flower 1904

Answer 10

a right of way cannot be used to get to another piece of your land that is not ST

Question 11

Re William Aldred 1610

Answer 11

nice view not an easement

Question 12

Browne v Flower 1904

Answer 12

privacy not an easement

Question 13

Wright v Macadam 1949

Answer 13

coal shed - use of s62 plus exclusivity

Question 14

Batchelor v Marlow 2000

Answer 14

parking: the test is - are you ousting SO from his property rights?

Question 15

Moncrieff v Jamieson 2007

Answer 15

Scottish parking - does the SO retain possession and control of ST?

Question 16

Virdi v Chana 2008

Answer 16

planting trees on ST where parking - still counts as retaining control

Question 17

Phipps v Pears 1965

Answer 17

no easement of protection of a house from demolishing

Question 18

Manjang v Drammeh 1991

Answer 18

high degree of necessity required - the river case

Question 19

Nickerson v Barraclough 1981

Answer 19

doctrine of necessity founded on the implication of circumstances, not public policy

Question 20

Rudd v Bowles 1912

Answer 20

4 houses case, implied grant of a right of way into a transaction

Question 21

Wong v Beaumont 1965

Answer 21

duct needed for the business on DT to continue

Question 22

Stafford v Lee 1992

Answer 22

test for degree of necessity: common intention and reasonably necessary

Question 23

Wheeldon v Burrows 1879

Answer 23

no derogation from one’s grant

Question 24

Milkman v Ellis 1995

Answer 24

case where without an easement it would be dangerous to access the highway

Question 25

Wheeler v Saunders 1995

Answer 25

access retained from the minor road, no easement under Wheeldon as not necessary

Question 26

Mills v Silver 1991

Answer 26

right to use by modern lost grant, but not to improve

Question 27

London Tara Hotel v Kensington Close Hotel 2011

Answer 27

no permissive user, no prescription

Question 28

Risegold Ltd v Escala Ltd 2008

Answer 28

right to repair and maintenance could include access to build a new house on DT because common intention

Question 29

Alford v Hannaford 2011

Answer 29

right to pass does not include kettle as there was a reservation to specifically drive animals

Question 30

Dutta v Hayes 2012

Answer 30

agricultural use has a meaning in law that doesn't include stud business

Question 31

White v Grand Hotel Eastbourne 1913

Answer 31

greatly increased use of way doesn't mean SO can restrict it

Question 32

Todrick v Western National Omnibus 1934

Answer 32

ramp case - right of way for buses not implied in the right of way

Question 33

BR Board v Glass 1965

Answer 33

caravan side expanded and so did the use of way; held not excessive

Question 34

Jelbert v Davis 1968

Answer 34

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

Question 35

McAdams v Robinson 2005

Answer 35

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

Question 36

Dewan v Lewis 2010

Answer 36

look at the actual use in the prescriptive easements cases

Question 37

Benn v Hardinge 1992

Answer 37

non-user for 175 years not enough to extinguish a right of way

Question 38

Dwyer v Westminster CC 2014

Answer 38

more than 40 years of non-use by CC, Dwyer put up locks and stuff, held to be too short to prove abandonment

Question 39

end of an easement

Answer 39

- 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

Question 40

extent of express easements

Answer 40

depends on words used, also intention

Question 41

extent of implied grant easements

Answer 41

the right is such as is necessary for reasonable enjoyment

Question 42

extent of prescriptive easements

Answer 42

at use to which ST has been put and what SO has tolerated