Easements (1): This is positive or negative
right to derive some limited advantage
(1) There must be a
dominant and a servient
tenement: London &
Blenhein Estates Ltd v
Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd;
and the land must be
identifiable: Wall v Collins
(2) The easement must
accommodate the dominant
tenement ie for the benefit of the
land: Moncrieff v Jamieson.
This includes rights necessary
for the convenient & comfortable
use and enjoyment of the land. It
must not be a personal right:
Hill v Tupper
(3) The dominant and
servient owners must be
different persons: Peckham
v Ellison; there should
either be diversity of
occupation or diversity of
ownership: Borman v
Griffith
Factors to Right to park: (1) Newman v
from the land of another. (3) right must not be exclusive to Jones: recognised right; (2)
negate grantee and cannot exclude grantor:
easements London & Blenheim Estates v
Jackson v Mulvaney Ladbroke Retail Parks; Batchelow
v Marlow: recognised easement if
Conditions to establish Note: the easement holder cannot degree of use is not too extensive;
use the easement to benefit other degree of use must not be too (3) Moncrieff v Jamieson: right to
easements: Re Ellenborough Park
land: Peacock v Custins [2002], extensive: Grigsby v Melville park necessary for enjoyment of
Das v Linden Mews Ltd [2002] land; (4) Waterman v Boyle
[2009]: incidental right to park
easement cannot become does not make it a necessity
(h) the right to use river equivalent of ownership: Copeland
(4) The right claimed must be capable of
moorings: Platt v Crouch v Greenhalf
forming the subject matter of the grant:
Dyce v Lady James Hay
dominant owner will be deprived of
(g) the right to lay and maintain
extensive & exclusive right to enjoy an implied / prescriptive
drains, sewers and pipes:
occupation may be easement if easement if two conditions are satisfied:
Attwood v Bovis Homes Ltd
(2) where servient icompatible with continued McAdams Homes Ltd v Robinson
tenement owner expends beneficial ownership of the
(f) recreational use/use for money or undertake any servient proprietor: Moncrieff
amusement unlikely to be an positive or onerous v Jamieson
(a) a right benefits action - not easement: (2) There is a
easement: Mounsey v Ismay
some trade/ Liverpool City Council v substantial
business through Irwin increase in the
where no evidence that grant of
the hanging of a (c) right of (e) parking rights: burden on the
easement was limited, easement
signboard: Moody way: Moncrieff v Jamieson servient land
was allowed: Davill v Pull
v Steggles Borman v (1) restricting Here right requires
although the trade/ Griffith servient owner from
(d) right of storage: neighbour to
business is certain acts on his maintain a Carter v Cole [2006]:
Wright v Macadam (1) There must be
incidental to the own land: negative boundary fence: the person who grants
normal enjoyment (b) use of a therefore not the easement is not a radical alteration
easement: Jones
of the land: Clos garden: Re easement: Phipps under any obligation to of the use of the
v Price: amounts Santhi Latha,
Farming Estates Ellenborough v Pears construct/maintain it. easement March 2018
to a fencing
Pty Ltd v Easton Park
obligation