Plaintiff’s land could only access the public highway via a bridge and through Defendant’s land However Plaintiff’s land was accessible by another route. Defendant kept pulling down the bridge.
Plaintiff asked the court to imply an easement right of way.
CA denied Plaintiff’s claim on the facts, saying that a right of way could be implied by necessity where the land would otherwise be inaccessible.
The doctrine of way of necessity is not founded upon public policy at all but upon an implication from the circumstances.
A way of necessity is never found to exist except in association with a grant of land.
He explicitly states that this mode of creating an easement is based on what is necessary to give effect to the parties’ intentions/expectations, and NOT what is necessary for the property to realise its usefulness.
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...
Land Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Land Law | Easements Notes (48 pages) |
GDL Land Law | Easements 2 Notes (19 pages) |
Tort Law | Nuisance Notes (70 pages) |