• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

Card Range To Study



Play button


Play button




Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

21 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
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
Re Ellenborough Park (1956)
No such thing as an easement “in gross” (without land that benefits from it) – it's just a licence
Rangeley v Midland Railway (1868)
To accommodate land you must show the right is connected to the normal enjoyment of the property (a question of fact)
Re Ellenborough Park (1956)
Right of way in Northumberland cannot accommodate land in Kent
Bailey v Stephens (1862)
To be an easement, right must not be so vague or extensive as to exclude owner from possession.
Copeland v Greenhalf (1952)
Can a right to light be an easement? Yes, because it can be precisely defined and narrow in scope to buildings in close proximity
Dalton v Angus (1881)
Can a right to a view be an easement? No, it imposes an unclear restriction on a wide range of land.
Dalton v Angus (1881)
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.
Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)
For the scope for new negative easements, the list is pretty well closed.
Phipps v Pears (1965)
Right to light must be through a specific aperture, no a general right to light
Colls v Home (1904)
Judicial objections to the appearance of new types of easements
Keppel v Bailey(1834)
Category of possible easements must alter and expand with the way people live
Dyce v Lady James Hay (1852)
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
London & Blenheim Estates (1992)
Bachelor v Marlow (2003)
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).
Wong v Beaumont (1965)
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
Wheeldon v Burrows (1879)
“Continuous or apparent” means a permanent feature that is apparent on inspection
Ward v Kirkland (1967)
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)
Wright v Macadam (1949)
Case setting out common law prescription and the doctrine of lost modern grant
Simmons v Dobson (1991)
Lost modern grant often used where there is a break in the 20 years' use, meaning you can't use the Prescription Act 1832
Mills v Silver (1991)
Amount of light to be enjoyed when acquired by prescription is suitable for the reasonable enjoyment in the circumstances
City of London Brewery (1873)
Colls v Home & Colonial (1904)
Court inferred abandonment of right to light by a wall being rebuilt without a window that its predecessor had
Moore v Rowson (1824)