D leased a premises to X to run a restaurant, avoid noxious smells and comply with Health Regulations. X failed and assigned the lease to P who ran it as a Chinese restaurant. This was successful but because of the smell created P was told by LA that he had to install a vent or close down. D wouldn’t let P install a vent, so P sued D, claiming an implied easement allowing him to install a vent. CA found for P, despite neither of the original parties considering a vent might be necessary. An easement was implied to accord with their general intentions.
Lord Denning MR: Under the “intentions of the parties” route set out by Lord Parker (above) in Pwllbach. The general intention is in accordance with implying an easement to install a vent, since this would comply with the health regulations and avoid noxious smells, as set out in the lease. “There is one point in which this case goes further than the earlier cases which have been cited. It is this. It was not realised by the parties, at the time of the lease, that this duct would be necessary. But it was in fact necessary from the very beginning. That seems to me sufficient to bring the principle into play.”