D leased an annex to P with an express clause that visitors to P could gain access through the yard. Whilst this first lease was still in force D also gave P permission for his visitors to come through the hall. D and P later signed a second lease that said nothing about the hallway. CA held that P’s claim succeeded under s.62 although it failed under Wheeldon since the hall was convenient, but not necessary for reasonable enjoyment.
Evershed MR: He says this case is similar to Wright v Macadam and therefore must be covered by s.62 (Bad analogy-based reasoning). The moment of conveyance is taken not as being when the agreement was stated to have begun but when in actual fact P was living there and able to enter etc.
