Wheeldon v Burrows [1879] 12 Ch D 31 Case Summary

KEY POINTS

For an easement to be implied from a quasi-easement, the following requisites must concur:

Must be continuous and be apparent at the time of the sale;
Must be necessary for the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property; and
Must have been enjoyed by the vendor when he owned both the dominant and servient lots.

The property in question had originally been owned by a man named Allen in the mid-19th century. Allen acquired two adjoining tenements, with one of them separated from the other by a wall. Over time, he made alterations to one of the tenements, including building a shed with windows adjacent to the wall.
In 1875, Samuel Tetley owned both of these tenements and decided to sell them. The lot that included the modified shed with windows was purchased by William Wheeldon at an auction while the other was bought by W.T.B. Burrows.
Afterwards, the plaintiff’s wife erected barriers near the windows of Burrows' shed, claiming her right to the unobstructed use and possession of her land. In response, Burrows dismantled her construction, asserting his right to an easement of light through the shed's windows.
Thus, Wheeldon brought a suit against Burrows for trespass.

This case is crucial, especially in property law, as it offers a framework for figuring out the rights and obligations of parties during the subdivision and sale of property. As long as the parameters indicated in the doctrine are followed, it helps ensure that the new property owners have access to necessary easements without the need for formal agreements or talks.

X owned 2 plots of land, one of which had a quasi-easement of light over the other. He then sold quasi dominant plot to Plaintiff after selling the quasi-servient one to Defendant.
CA held that Plaintiff did not have an easement because the servient land had been sold first, NOT subject to any easements, servitudes, etc.
Had the dominant one been sold first then there would have been an easement.

There are 4 aspects to the rule:
1. Firstly there had to have been a quasi-easement
2. Secondly the dominant land has to have been sold first
3. Thirdly the quasi-easement had to have been continuous and apparent
4. Fourthly the easement must be necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the land.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch