Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

LECTURE  5  and  6:  Easements  
 
1
...
   
 
How  can  you  distinguish  an  easement  from  other  rights  eg  a  covenant  or  a  licence?  
Profits:  i
...
 right  to  fish  in  the  river
...
 Profits  can  exist  in  gross  (no  need  to  own  land  to  benefit  from  it)  easements  cannot  
Easements  do  not  confer  a  profit  eg  a  right  of  way  =  right  to  cross  land  and  not  to  remove  anything  from  it  
 
Licences:  i
...
   
Restrictive  covenants:  agreement  between  2  neighbouring  landowners  where  one  agrees  what  he/she  
could   do   on   the   land
...
    Can   be   created  
formally  but  easements-­‐  created  formally  or  by  long  use
...
 The  Characteristics  of  an  easement  
Re  Ellenborough  Park  [1956]    
Developers   sold   off   plots   of   land   together   with   the   right   to   use   Ellenborough  Park   (a   pleasure   garden)  
subject  to  payment  of  a  fair  proportion  of  the  cost  of  keeping  the  park  in  good  condition
...
 
Issue:  enjoyment  rights’  capable  of  being  recognised  as  easements?  Yes  
 
Held:  rights  to  use  the  park  were  legal  easements
...
 
 
Lord  Evershed:  4  characteristics  required:  all  must  be  present  for  easement  to  exist:  
a
...
 
Land  with  burden  of  right  =  servient)  
b
...
 easement  must  accommodate  (benefit)  the  dominant  tenement;  and  
d
...
1  Dominant  and  servient  tenement  
London  and  Blenheim  Estates  Ltd  v  Ladbroke  Retail  Parks  Ltd  [1992]    
A  right  to  park  was  claimed  as  an  easement
...
  That   never   occurred   in   this   case
...
 That,  
as  it  seems  to  me  is  fatal  to  the  creation  of  the  easement
...
2  Easement  must  accommodate  the  dominant  tenement  
‘There  can  be  no  right  of  way  over  land  in  Kent  appurtenant  to  an  estate  in  Northumberland’  Byles  J  in  
Bailey  v  Stephens  [1862]    
Contrast    
Hill  v  Tupper  [1863]:  boat  on  riverfront  –  mere  personal  not  proprietary  right:  failed  
 An  easement  would  not  be  recognised  
...
 Here,  the  right  to  
exclusive  use  of  the  canal  was  not  for  benefitting  the  land  itself,  but  just  for  the  business
...
3  The  dominant  and  servient  tenement  must  be  owned  and  occupied  by  different  people  
 
2
...
e
...
   
Positive   easement:   dominant   owner   must   do   something   in   order   to   exercise   his   right
...
   
Negative  easement:  right  which  is  enjoyed  without  any  action  by  the  dominant  owners
...
-­‐   would  
mean  that  the  other  house  could  not  be  demolished
...
   
Held:   courts   are   reluctant   to   allow   the   creation   of   new   negative   easements   which   would   be   an   undue  
restriction  of  an  owner’s  rights  over  his  land
...
 
Every  man  is  entitled  to  pull  down  his  house  if  he  likes
...
   It  is  no  wrong  on  his  part
...
  no   easement   as   otherwise   would  
hinder  development  of  land  version  of  floodgates  argument  +  safeguards  in  planning  system
...
4  Must  not  impose  positive  burden  on  servient  owner  
Duke  of  Westminster  v  Guild  [1985]  asked  whether  a  landlord  was  obliged  to  repair  a  drain  serving  the  
demised  premises  which  passed  under  the  landlord’s  retained  land
...
 Slade  LJ:  imposing  on  [the  plaintiffs]  positive  obligations  to  perform  acts  of  repair  that  they  
would  not  otherwise  be  under  any  obligation  to  perform  
 
Some   exceptions   eg   fencing   –   see   Crow   v   Wood   A   landowner   let   out   his   farmland   to   several   different  
farmers,  The  tenancy  agreements  provided  that  boundary  fences  were  maintained
...
  Easement   of   fencing?   Has   been   allowed   as   positive   easements
...
 
Harding   [1975]   QB   62,   yet   dubious   due   to   expense   imposed   on   servient   tenement   to   maintain   fence
...
 
Obligation  to  fence  should  in  future  take  effect  as  land  obligations
...
e
...
   Read  the  case  above  
 
Must  not  exclude  the  use  of  the  servient  tenement  by  the  servient  owner  
Grant  of  exclusive  possession  of  land  might  give  rise  to  a  lease  but  cannot  be  and  easement
...
   
Held:  failed  
Wright   v   Macadam   [1949]:   accepted   tenant   had   right   to   store   coal   in   landlord’s   shed
...
   
Prior  2  cases  Contrasted  by    
Copeland  v  Greenhalf  [1952]:  claimants  owned  land  on  which  D  had  stored  &  repaired  vehicles  for  50  
years
...
  Right   was   uncertain   &   had   effect   of   excluding   servient   owner  
from  using  land  vehicles  from  using  land  as  vehicles  could  be  left  for  any  length  of  time  &  repairs  to  all  
kinds  of  vehicles  carried  out
...
  Brightman   J:   might   well   be   not  
inconsistency-­‐   not   aware   of   how   much   coal   was   stored   nor   whether   the   landlord   was   prevented   from  
using  his  shed
...
30am   and   6pm
...
   Confirmed  a  more  limited  nature  of  storage  and  parking  easements  
 
Summary:    
Registered  land:  
Legal  E  &  profits  created  expressly  i
...
 by  deed  are  registrable  dispositions
...
62(1)      
By  prescription  Sch  3  para  3,  LRA  2002  
Un  reg  land:  Le  binds  all  3rd  parties  
Equi’E  Interests  must  bind  purchasers  who  have  notice  of  them  and  will  bind  those  automatically
...
 CREATION  OF  EASEMENTS  
3
...
2 Creation  by  Implied  grant  or  reservation  

   

 
 
Necessity:   So   essential   to   the   enjoyment   of   the   land   that   the   land   cannot   be   used   without  
the  easement  (e
...
 –  ‘land-­‐locked  close’)
...
 easements  of  necessity;  
B
...
 easements  under  the  rule  in  Wheeldon  v  Burrows  
Nickerson   v   Barraclough   [1980]:     suggests   that   easements   of   necessity   are   really   a   form   of   intended  
easement-­‐  thus  not  really  separate  categories
...
 The  landowner  needing  to  carry  out  repairs  can  obtain  an  access  order  under  s1
...
 
London  v  Riggs:  Jessel  MR  Easement  of  necessity  can  be  impliedly  granted  or  reserved  
Riggs  only  entitled  to  what  was  necessary  at  time  of  grant  and  not  what  was  convenient  now  
Because  Barn  Hoppet  used  for  agricultural  purposes  at  time  of  sale  Riggs  only  entitled  to  right  of  way  for  
that  purpose  and  not  for  all  purposes  
 
3
...
2  Easement  to  give  effect  to  the  common  intention  of  the  parties
...
2
...
 
 It   is   not   enough   that   the   subject   matter   of   the   grant…
...
’  Lord  Parker  Pwllbach    
Cory  v  Davies  [1923]  
A  owned  freehold  of  1-­‐3  Stag  Close  
A  granted  lease  of  no  1  to  H  in  March,  no  2  to  J  in  April  and  no  3  to  D  in  May  
Each  lease  included  the  portion  of  the  drive  immediately  in  front  of  the  house  
At  each  end  of  the  drive  is  a  gate  
None  of  the  leases  contained  an  express  grant  or  reservation  of  an  easement  over  the  drive  
H  has  locked  the  gate  to  stop  others  using  the  drive  
Held  –  clear  in  the  way  the  development  carried  out  that  it  was  expected  that  the  tenant  of  each  house  
would  be  able  to  obtain  access  from  either  end  of  the  drive  
Implied  grant  to  give  effect  to  the  common  intention  of  the  parties  
Stafford  v  Lee  [1992]  65  P  &  CR  172:  court  accepted  that  it  was  appropriate  to  infer  an  easement  to  
give   effect   to   the   intention   of   the   original   parties,   but   that   it   could   be   done   in   which   the   parties   intended  
that  the  dominant  land  should  be  used  in  some  definite  and  particular  way
...
2
...
  Burrows   (‘continuous   and   apparent’;   ‘necessary   to   the   reasonable   enjoyment   of  
the  land  sold’;  and  ‘in  use  by  the  owner  at  the  time  of  sale’)  
‘on  the  grant  by  the  owner  of  a  tenement  of  part  of  that  tenement  as  it  is  then  used  and  enjoyed  there  will  
pass   to   the   grantee   all   those   continuous   and   apparent   easements   (by   which   I   mean   quasi-­‐easements),   or  
in   other   words,   all   those   easements   which   are   necessary   to   the   reasonable   enjoyment   of   the   property  
granted,  and  which  have  been  and  are  at  the  time  of  the  grant  used  by  the  owners  of  the  entirely  for  the  
benefit  of  the  part  granted
...
 
3  elements  to  the  rule:  
a
...
necessary  to  the  reasonable  enjoyment’  of  the  land  sold,  and;  
c
...
 
If  satisfied:  then  a  grant  of  a  legal  easement  is  implied  into  the  transfer  of  the  portion  of  the  land  that  is  
sold
...
 Each  requirement  applied  in  a  diff  type  of  easement,  positive  easement  being  required  to  be  
continuous  and  apparent,  whilst  negative  easements  must  be  shown  to  be  necessary  to  the  reasonable  
enjoyment  of  the  property
...
   
 

•
•

3
...
4  LPA  1925,  s
...
   
Operates   by   importing   certain   words   into   the   conveyance   ,   it   has   the   effect   of   making   an   express,   not  
implied,  grant  of  the  easement  or  profit(Gregg  v  Richards)  1926  
2  effects:  
Passes  benefit  of  an  existing  right  to  Buyer  on  sale  of  whole  (word  saving)  
“Magic  Effect”-­‐  Creates  new  easements:  Automatically  converts  existing  licences,  etc
...
e
...
 He  later  granted  her  a  new  
tenancy
...
 As  a  right  to  store  coal  was  a  right  capable  of  
being  granted  of  the  new  tenancy  had  the  effect  of  converting  what  was  a  license  into  an  easement
...
62  to  apply:  
Must  have  diversity  of  occupation-­‐  each  piece  of  land  occupied  by  diff  people  
The  easement  is  continuous  and  apparent  
 
However:  P  &  S  Platt  Ltd  v  Crouch  2003:  held  that  provide  the  easement  was  continuous  &  apparent  and  
there  was  no  need  for  diversity  of  occupation
...
 Purchaser  claimed  that  s
...
 Didn’t  apply  as  language  of  the  grant  was  clear-­‐  so  no  need  to  extend  the  it  to  
include  the  right  for  animals,  to  pass  along  the  track
...
   
 
Comparison  between  Wheeldon  v  Burrow    &  LPA  1925,  s
...
W  v  B  relates  only  to  easements,  whilst  s
...
W   v   B   operates   where,   before   conveyance,   2   pieces   of   land   have   been   occupied   by   same   person,  
whereas  save  in  the  case  of  continuous  and  apparent  easements,  diversity  of  occupation  is  required  
for  s
...
No  such  restriction  in  s
...
W   v   Burrows   unlike   s
...
3  Creation  by  Prescription  (presumed  grant)    
 Possible  to  create  an  easement  by  long  use  &  such  an  easement  will  be  legal
...
 i
...
  rights  of  way,  rights  to  light  and  rights  to  use  drains,  
cables  and  pipes  which  run  through  another’s  land
...
 It  is  also  
possible  to  claim  an  easement  under  the  Prescription  Act  1832
...
3
...
    Did   Silver   satisfy  
these  conditions?  
use   as   of   right   i
...
  without   force   (nec   vi),   without   secrecy   (nec   clam)   and   without   permission   (nec  
precario)  
use  by  one  fee  simple  owner  against  another  fee  simple  owner  
use  must  be  continuous  for  the  requisite  period  of  time
...
3
...
 
Duke  of  Norfolk  v  Arbuthnot  [1880]  5  CPD  390  
 
Doctrine  of  lost  modern  grant  (modification  of  common  law)  
When  would  an  easement  have  been  acquired  by  lost  modern  grant?  
Tehidy  Minerals  Ltd  v  Norman  [1971]  2  QB  528  
 
3
...
3  Prescription  Act  1832    
This  method  was  intended  to  replace  the  common  law  methods  but  has  not
...
 

•
•

•

•

 
Non-­‐light  easements  
The  claim  for  a  non-­‐light  easement  can  be  based  on  one  of  two  long  periods  of  use  under  s  2:  
 
20   years   –   the   claimant   must   satisfy   common   law   conditions   and   oral   or   written   consent   given   at   any  
time  defeats  a  claim
...
    Written  
consent  given  before  or  during  the  period  defeats  a  claim
...
 
With  both  periods,  the  user  must  be  (s  4):  
‘without  interruption’  –  to  be  an  interruption,  the  claimant’s  use  of  the  right  must  have  been  prevented  
for   a   period   lasting   at   least   one   year
...
 
‘next  before  action’  –    
no  right  to  an  easement  arises  until  a  court  action  is  brought  
use  must  be  continuous  right  up  to  that  date
...
 
 
Easements  of  light  
For   easements   of   light   there   is   one   possible   period   under   s   3
...
 The  claimant  need  not  fulfil  the  common  law  conditions
...
   Oral  permission  (whenever  given)  will  not  defeat  a  
claim
...
 Extinguishing  Easements  
4
...
2  Release    
4
...
 
 
Swan  v  Sinclair  [1924]:  a  right  of  way  had  not  been  used  for  over  50  years  &  had  blocked  fences  &  
uneven  ground
...
 Once  easement  has  been  abandoned  by  courts  it’s  
claimed  to  be  extinguished
...
 Does  the  benefit  and  burden  of  the  easement  run  
5
...
  S
...
  Easements   not   satisfying   this   requirement   are  
equitable  per  s
...
 
5
...
 On  first  registration  of  estate,  all  legal  easements  and  profits  are  overriding  interests  (ss
...
1,  para
...
 A  legal  interest;  
ii
...
62;  
iii
...
   
5
...
 Legal  easements  and  profits  expressly  created  are  now  automatically  protected  by  entry  of  notice  on  
the  servient  tenement’s  register  of  title  (s
...
4
...
3,   para
...
 3,  para
...
 
5
...
 Equitable  easements  and  profits  cannot  be  overriding  interests
...
   
5
...
 For  unregistered  land,  legal  easements  binding  on  world  but  equitable  easements  must  be  registered  
as  a  land  charge  to  bind
...
 Law  Commission  Recommendations  
6
...
 Simplify  creation,  eliminate  anomalies,  Land  Tribunal’s  jurisdiction  
6
...
 Statutory  Scheme  
a
...
 Presence  of  relevant  physical  features  on  servient  land;    
c
...
 Practicable  routes  for  easement;    
e
...


Quick  Summary:  (Focus  on  prescription  as  the  tutorial  focused  on  it)  
is  a  proprietary  right  capable  of  being  legal  if  the  easements  are  for  a  fixed  or  certain  length  of  time  or  
effectively  forever  and  it  is  created  by  deed
...
3  LPA  1925:  an  E  that  is  not  a  Legal  Easement(LE),  can  operated  as  an  Equitable  Easement(EE)-­‐  capable  
of  binding  a  third  party  
– Generally  LE  appears  in  register,  or  as  an  overriding  interest  
– EE  must  enter  on  register  as  a  notice  to  bind  third  party-­‐  especially  since  the  LRA  2002
...
   
– Para  3  of  Sch  1-­‐3  LRA  2002-­‐  LE  are  capable  of  overriding
...
   
As  s
...
 
– Easement:    type  of  right  which  one  person  has  over  the  land  of  another
...
 If  right  are  not  satisfied  that  right  may  
be  seen  as  purely  personal  rights  
– Characteristics  of    an  easement  (Re  Ellenborough  Park):  Evershed  MR  
1
...
 E  must  ‘accommodate’  the    DT  
3
...
 Right  must  be  capable  of  for  being  the  subject  matter  of  grant  
 
– 1
...
 
– 2  pieces  of  land  must  be  identifiable  a  the  time  of  the  grant  as  in  London  &  Blenheim  Estates  v  Ladbroke  
Retail  Parks:  where  no  E  was  present  as  no  dominant  land  at  the  time  the  easement  was  present  was  
granted
...
 E  must  ‘accommodate’  the  DT  
– 2nd  test  as  accommodating  the  DT  meaning  right  must  clearly  benefit  the  land  itself  rather  than  the  
owner
...
   For  
the  S  to  confer  a  tangible  benefit  on  the  D’s  land
...
 Hill  v  Tupper  (1863)  
concerned  a  purely  personal  advantage  on  the  owner  of  a  pleasure  boat  business  to  run  canal  boats  down  
a  river
...
   
– Contrasted  by:  Moody  v  Steggles  (1879):  Fry  J:  held  right  to  hand  a  pub  sign  on  a  neighbour’s  wall  was  
an  easement  which  was  related  not  to  ‘occupant  of  the  business’  but  to  the  ‘business  of  the  occupant’
...
 2  plots  must  be  occupied  by  diff  people  
– can  mean,  that  both  plots  cam  be  owned  freehold  by  one  person,  provided  that  one  of  the  lots  has  a  tenant  
who  also  ‘owns’  the  leasehold  estate
...
 Subject  matter  of  grant  
– 4th  characteristic  is  more  easily  applied  with  provided  sub  rules:  
– a
...
 sufficiently  certain  
– c
...
 exclusive  use  by  the  dominant  land
...
 capable  granter  &  grantee:  
– needs  to  be  a  person  with  legal  title  able  to  grant  &  receive  the  benefit  of  the  E
...
e
...
 sufficiently  certain  
– Traditionally  easement  needed  to  be  written  on  a  deed  on  be  clear  in  it’s  terms
...
 positive  expenditure  
Regis  v  Redman  (1965)  could  arguably  be  unfair  for  the  serviant  tenement  to  grant  an  E  &  then  have  to  
pay  for  an  upkeep  of  that  E  in  favour  of  the  D’s  land
...
 Decision  criticised  for  finding  a  way  to  avoid  a  
positive  covenant  (would  not  bind  3rd  party)  by  creating  ‘negative  easement’    
d
...
 
Can  be  an  E  of  a  space  such  as  that  of  a  cellar  for  storage  of  coal  (Wright  v  Macadam  (1949)  but  not  
when  that  leads  to  the  general  exclusion  of  the  ST  owner  as  in  Grigsby  v  Melville  (1973)  where  the  DT  
had  exclusive  use  of  cellar  space
...
 In  London  &  Blenheim  Estates  v  Ladbroke:  stated  that  non-­‐speficic  parking  space  was  capable  of  
being  an  E
...
 
 
Creation  of  a  legal  or  Equitable  Easement  
E  can  be  created  expressly-­‐  due  to  an  E  being  a  proprietary  interest  in  land  under  s
...
53(1)(a)  LPA  1925  though  will=  EE-­‐  must  appear  as  a  motice  in  the  
charges  section  of  the  register  to  bind  party  
Can  be  implied:  deemed  legal  and  equitable  
LE:  capable  of  binding  successor  in  title  under  provisions  in  S  27  LRA  2002  &  implied  easement  bind  as  
an  overriding  interest  under  para  3  of  Sch  1  &3  LRA  2002
...
   
E’s  can  be  implied  by:  
a
...
Common  Intention  
c
...
LPA  1925,  s
...
   Necessity  
Withouth  the  benefit  of  the  easements,  land  would  be  useless  or  impossible  to  use
...
   
Wong  v  Beaumont  (1965)  an  implied  granny  of  an  E    of  necessity  was  argued  in  relation  to  ventilation  
through  a  shaft  as  the  land  conveyed  to  Wong  specifically  for  the  purpose  of  the  restaurant  would  have  
been  rendered  useless  without  the  easement  of  the  ventilation  shaft  over  the  sellers  retained  land
...
 Common  intention  
Easement  implied  by  common  intention  conveyed  in  Pwllbach  Colliery  v  Woodman  (1915)  stated  that  
the  law  will  ‘readily  imply’  the  grant  or  reservation  of  and  E  of  common  intention  where  facts  suggest  that  
it  was  the  intention  of  both  parties  that  and  E  should  exist
...
   
In  Wong:  the  CI  was  stronger  of  the  2  arguments  (other  being  necessity)  as  Wong  convinced  the  court  
that  Beaumont  must  have  intended  there  be  an  E  of  ventilation  as  without  it  there  would  be  a  breach  in  
health  &  safety  law  by  Beaumont  &  would  be  ‘derogating  from  grant’  L  &  T  dontrine  suggests  landlord  
gives  one  hand  by  way  of  lease,  he  cannot  remove  with  the  other
...
 Rule  in  Wheeldon  v  Burrows(1879)  
Thesiger  Lj:  no  of  rules  to  establish  implied  grant  of  an  E  (no  implied  reservations  using  Wheeldon)  
Has  to  be  one  single  owner  &  occupier  at  the  outset  who  sells  of  leases  land  ,  retaining  the  rest
...
   
Hansford  v  Jago(1921)  a  rough  track  used  by  original  owner  over  the  part  of  the  land  sold  or  leased’  
where  such  a  track  is  ‘permanent  &  obvious’  &  is  necessary  for  the  enjoy’t    of  the  land  by  the  new  owner-­‐  
will  be  seen  as  an  E  under  the  rule  of  W  v  B  
Ward  v  Kirkland  (1967)  continuous  and  apparent  was  defined  as  a  ‘feature  which  would  be  seen  on  
inspection  &  which  is  neither  transitory  or  intermittent’  
 
D
...
62  
A  conveyance  of  land  shall  be  deemed  to  included  all  liberties,  privileges,  easements,  rights  &  advantages
...
 
There  was  common  ownership  but  diversity  of  occupation  as  there  must  be  a  conveyance  to  of  the  D  land
...
62  not  E  in  existence  unless  there  is  separation  of  occupation  of  the  plots
...
 Also  access  to  the  hotel  through  other  properties
...
 New  owner  claimed  and  E  
under  s  62  over  the  retained  riverside  properties  to  continue  to  moor  boats  ,  advertise  &  use  hotel  in  
right  way
...
 Gibson  aligned  the  rule  in  
Wheeldon  with  the  rule  of  s
...
27  LRA  2002  
All  legal  E  created  expressly  ,  once  registered  will  be  binding,  &  implied  LE  may  be  binding  as  an  
overriding  interest  under  para  3  sch  1  &  3  
Legal  (implied)  E  will  be  binding  on  3rd  party  if  a)  it  is  in  the  actual  knowledge  of  the  new  owner  b)  the  
easement  is  reasonably  obvious  on  careful  inspection  of  the  land  c)  person  claiming  the  benefit  of  the  E  
can  demonstrate  that  they  have  used  the  E  within  the  last  year  leading  up  the  sale  of  the  land  to  the  new  
owner
...
 Benn  v  Hardinge  (1992)  
If  land  returns  to  sole  ownership  (Huckvale  v  Aegan  Hotels  1989)  then  easements  may  be  terminated  
but  not  through  an  application  to  the  land  tribunal  under  s  84  LPA  1925  as  can  be  the  method  of  
restrictive  covenants

---