Land Ws8 Easements

Front 1

Conditions for a right to be capable of being an easement:
1. Dominant and servient tenement
2. Easement accommodates the dominant tenement
3. Dominant and servient tenements not owned and occupied by the same person
4. Must be capable of being the subject matter of a grant

Back 1

Re Ellenborough Park (1956)

Front 2

No such thing as an easement “in gross” (without land that benefits from it) – it's just a licence

Back 2

Rangeley v Midland Railway (1868)

Front 3

To accommodate land you must show the right is connected to the normal enjoyment of the property (a question of fact)

Back 3

Re Ellenborough Park (1956)

Front 4

Right of way in Northumberland cannot accommodate land in Kent

Back 4

Bailey v Stephens (1862)

Front 5

To be an easement, right must not be so vague or extensive as to exclude owner from possession.

Back 5

Copeland v Greenhalf (1952)

Front 6

Can a right to light be an easement? Yes, because it can be precisely defined and narrow in scope to buildings in close proximity

Back 6

Dalton v Angus (1881)

Front 7

Can a right to a view be an easement? No, it imposes an unclear restriction on a wide range of land.

Back 7

Dalton v Angus (1881)

Front 8

Can a right to TV reception be an easement? No, it's an unclear restriction on land for miles around with an easy remedy, protected by planning laws anyway.

Back 8

Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)

Front 9

For the scope for new negative easements, the list is pretty well closed.

Back 9

Phipps v Pears (1965)

Front 10

Right to light must be through a specific aperture, no a general right to light

Back 10

Colls v Home (1904)

Front 11

Judicial objections to the appearance of new types of easements

Back 11

Keppel v Bailey(1834)

Front 12

Category of possible easements must alter and expand with the way people live

Back 12

Dyce v Lady James Hay (1852)

Front 13

Right to park is a question of fact and degree
- If the right used gives the owner a reasonable use of the land, it can be an easement
- If the degree is to make ownership illusory, it cannot be an easment

Back 13

London & Blenheim Estates (1992)
Bachelor v Marlow (2003)

Front 14

For sales of part, easements can be implied by either necessity (no reasonable use without) or by common intention (clearly implied by the intention of the parties at the sale).

Back 14

Wong v Beaumont (1965)

Front 15

On a sale of part, a buyer can get an easement if:
i. The right is continuous and apparent (like a drain or a path)
ii. Necessary for reasonable enjoyment of the land
iii. Right was used as quasi easement prior to sale of part

Back 15

Wheeldon v Burrows (1879)

Front 16

“Continuous or apparent” means a permanent feature that is apparent on inspection

Back 16

Ward v Kirkland (1967)

Front 17

Under LPA25, s62, Licences/permissions can become easements if:
- Sale of part
- Before sale, there was a licence capable of being an easement
- There was (generally) diverse occupation at time of sale (not unity)

Back 17

Wright v Macadam (1949)

Front 18

Case setting out common law prescription and the doctrine of lost modern grant

Back 18

Simmons v Dobson (1991)

Front 19

Lost modern grant often used where there is a break in the 20 years' use, meaning you can't use the Prescription Act 1832

Back 19

Mills v Silver (1991)

Front 20

Amount of light to be enjoyed when acquired by prescription is suitable for the reasonable enjoyment in the circumstances

Back 20

City of London Brewery (1873)
Colls v Home & Colonial (1904)

Front 21

Court inferred abandonment of right to light by a wall being rebuilt without a window that its predecessor had

Back 21

Moore v Rowson (1824)