Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Easements (1): This is positive or negative

right to derive some limited advantage Factors to Right to park: (1) Newman v
(1) There must be a from the land of another. (3) right must not be exclusive to Jones: recognised right; (2)
negate grantee and cannot exclude grantor:
dominant and a servient easements London & Blenheim Estates v
tenement: London & Jackson v Mulvaney Ladbroke Retail Parks; Batchelow
Blenhein Estates Ltd v v Marlow: recognised easement if
Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd; Conditions to establish Note: the easement holder cannot degree of use is not too extensive;
and the land must be use the easement to benefit other degree of use must not be too (3) Moncrieff v Jamieson: right to
easements: Re Ellenborough Park
identifiable: Wall v Collins 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
(2) The easement must easement cannot become does not make it a necessity
accommodate the dominant (h) the right to use river equivalent of ownership: Copeland
(4) The right claimed must be capable of
tenement ie for the benefit of the moorings: Platt v Crouch v Greenhalf
forming the subject matter of the grant:
land: Moncrieff v Jamieson.
Dyce v Lady James Hay
This includes rights necessary dominant owner will be deprived of
for the convenient & comfortable (g) the right to lay and maintain
extensive & exclusive right to enjoy an implied / prescriptive
use and enjoyment of the land. It drains, sewers and pipes:
occupation may be easement if easement if two conditions are satisfied:
must not be a personal right: Attwood v Bovis Homes Ltd
(2) where servient icompatible with continued McAdams Homes Ltd v Robinson
Hill v Tupper 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
(3) The dominant and (a) a right benefits action - not easement: (2) There is a
easement: Mounsey v Ismay
servient owners must be some trade/ Liverpool City Council v substantial
different persons: Peckham business through Irwin increase in the
v Ellison; there should where no evidence that grant of
the hanging of a (c) right of (e) parking rights: burden on the
either be diversity of easement was limited, easement
signboard: Moody way: Moncrieff v Jamieson servient land
occupation or diversity of was allowed: Davill v Pull
v Steggles Borman v (1) restricting Here right requires
ownership: Borman v although the trade/ Griffith servient owner from
Griffith (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