LAND LAW- EASEMENT A NEW UPDATED VERSION
LATEST 2023 (PROMBLEM QUESTION AND ANSWER)
Easement - ANSWER: A right enjoyed by the owner of land to a benefit to other land
Profit a predre - ANSWER: the right to take natural produce from another person's
land
Two main steps in establishing whether an easement exists - ANSWER: 1. Must show
the right you are seeking is capable of being an easement: does it fit the definition of
an easement?
2. Must show how the easement was acquired , may have been expressly granted,
but there are a number of other ways in which easements can arise, including the
long term exercise of a right that might be an easement.
Halsbury's Laws of England - ANSWER: 'An easement is a right annexed in land to
utilize other land of different ownership in a particular manner (not involving the
taking of any part of the natural produce of the land or any part of the soil) or to
prevent the owner of the land from utilizing his land in a particular manner.
Dominant tenement - ANSWER: A piece of land that benefits from an easement
Servient tenement - ANSWER: A piece of land that bears the burden of an easement
In gross - ANSWER: Not attached to the land
'an easement cannot exist in gross'
Most easements are positive rights
Negative easements also exist - ANSWER: Right to support for a building- it is a
negative right because it stops the servient owner from doing something that might
otherwise have been done
Note that the definition excludes rights that involve 'the taking of any part of the
natural produce of the land or of any part of its soil' - ANSWER: such rights are not
easements they are profits a predre
Re Ellenborough Park [1955] - COA defining characteristics - ANSWER: 1. There must
be a dominant and a servient tenement
2. An easement must accommodate the dominant tenement
3. Dominant and servient owners must be different persons
4. A right over land cannot amount to an easement unless it is capable of forming
the subject matter of a grant.
Bailey v Stephens (1862)- - ANSWER: An owner of an estate in Northumberland
could not validly grant a right of way over it to someone who owned an estate in
, Kent, Whilst it might be very pleasant for the Kentish owner to walk over the estate
in Northumberland, it could not possibly benefit his land in Kent.
Re Elenborough park - ANSWER: the servient and dominant tenemants need not be
next to each other, but they must be close.
Moody v Steggles (1897) - ANSWER: the right to hang an inn sign on adjoining
property was held to be an easement.
Platt v Crouch [2003] - ANSWER: right for guests to moor boats to adjacent land-
accepted as easement. Other rights, i.e. right to place signs on nearby land and rights
of way for hotel guests- also easements.
Hill v. Tupper (1863) - ANSWER: claimant alleged that the right to hire out pleasure
boats on the canal was an easement so he could stop the defendant from infringing
it- the court refused his claim, because the right did not accommodate the dominant
tenement and thus was not an easement. It was merely a personal right granted to
the claimant under his lease.
Mercer v Denne [1905] - ANSWER: local customary rights that are similar to
easements- some fisherman established a customary right to dry fishing nets on the
beach
Browne v Flower [1911] - ANSWER: the right must be definite enough to be
described in a deed, or it could not have been granted. Examples that have fallen
foul of this rule are claims to a right of indefinite privacy,
William Aldred's case (1610) - ANSWER: the right to a view. Rejected claim for an
easement
Palmer v Bowman [2000] - ANSWER: rejected easement- include the right to drain
water by percolation through the land.
Magrath v Parkside Hotels Ltd [2011] - ANSWER: A right of fire escape over the
servient land (not over a defined route but over the land in general)- too vague to be
an easement
Coventry v Lawrence [2014]- - ANSWER: Noise nuisance from a stadium- held there
could be in principle an easement to make a noise but the facts of the case itself did
not establish such an easement.
Factors used in deciding whether a right is of the type that can be recognised as an
easement: - ANSWER: • The right must be 'of the same kind' as existing easements
• It should not oblige the servient owner to spend money
• It should not amount to possession of the servient tenement- the servient owner
must still be able to use the land.
LATEST 2023 (PROMBLEM QUESTION AND ANSWER)
Easement - ANSWER: A right enjoyed by the owner of land to a benefit to other land
Profit a predre - ANSWER: the right to take natural produce from another person's
land
Two main steps in establishing whether an easement exists - ANSWER: 1. Must show
the right you are seeking is capable of being an easement: does it fit the definition of
an easement?
2. Must show how the easement was acquired , may have been expressly granted,
but there are a number of other ways in which easements can arise, including the
long term exercise of a right that might be an easement.
Halsbury's Laws of England - ANSWER: 'An easement is a right annexed in land to
utilize other land of different ownership in a particular manner (not involving the
taking of any part of the natural produce of the land or any part of the soil) or to
prevent the owner of the land from utilizing his land in a particular manner.
Dominant tenement - ANSWER: A piece of land that benefits from an easement
Servient tenement - ANSWER: A piece of land that bears the burden of an easement
In gross - ANSWER: Not attached to the land
'an easement cannot exist in gross'
Most easements are positive rights
Negative easements also exist - ANSWER: Right to support for a building- it is a
negative right because it stops the servient owner from doing something that might
otherwise have been done
Note that the definition excludes rights that involve 'the taking of any part of the
natural produce of the land or of any part of its soil' - ANSWER: such rights are not
easements they are profits a predre
Re Ellenborough Park [1955] - COA defining characteristics - ANSWER: 1. There must
be a dominant and a servient tenement
2. An easement must accommodate the dominant tenement
3. Dominant and servient owners must be different persons
4. A right over land cannot amount to an easement unless it is capable of forming
the subject matter of a grant.
Bailey v Stephens (1862)- - ANSWER: An owner of an estate in Northumberland
could not validly grant a right of way over it to someone who owned an estate in
, Kent, Whilst it might be very pleasant for the Kentish owner to walk over the estate
in Northumberland, it could not possibly benefit his land in Kent.
Re Elenborough park - ANSWER: the servient and dominant tenemants need not be
next to each other, but they must be close.
Moody v Steggles (1897) - ANSWER: the right to hang an inn sign on adjoining
property was held to be an easement.
Platt v Crouch [2003] - ANSWER: right for guests to moor boats to adjacent land-
accepted as easement. Other rights, i.e. right to place signs on nearby land and rights
of way for hotel guests- also easements.
Hill v. Tupper (1863) - ANSWER: claimant alleged that the right to hire out pleasure
boats on the canal was an easement so he could stop the defendant from infringing
it- the court refused his claim, because the right did not accommodate the dominant
tenement and thus was not an easement. It was merely a personal right granted to
the claimant under his lease.
Mercer v Denne [1905] - ANSWER: local customary rights that are similar to
easements- some fisherman established a customary right to dry fishing nets on the
beach
Browne v Flower [1911] - ANSWER: the right must be definite enough to be
described in a deed, or it could not have been granted. Examples that have fallen
foul of this rule are claims to a right of indefinite privacy,
William Aldred's case (1610) - ANSWER: the right to a view. Rejected claim for an
easement
Palmer v Bowman [2000] - ANSWER: rejected easement- include the right to drain
water by percolation through the land.
Magrath v Parkside Hotels Ltd [2011] - ANSWER: A right of fire escape over the
servient land (not over a defined route but over the land in general)- too vague to be
an easement
Coventry v Lawrence [2014]- - ANSWER: Noise nuisance from a stadium- held there
could be in principle an easement to make a noise but the facts of the case itself did
not establish such an easement.
Factors used in deciding whether a right is of the type that can be recognised as an
easement: - ANSWER: • The right must be 'of the same kind' as existing easements
• It should not oblige the servient owner to spend money
• It should not amount to possession of the servient tenement- the servient owner
must still be able to use the land.
