Wright v Macadam [1949] 2 KB 744

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• The defendant leased a top-floor flat to Mrs Wright. While this first lease was still running Macadam gave Mrs Wright permission to store her coal in a coal-shed situated in the garden to the small block of flats.

• When Wright’s first lease ran out, it was renewed for a further period. At the time of renewal nothing was said about the coal shed.

• Later, during the running of the second lease, Macadam demanded that Wright pay one shilling and sixpence (seven-and-a-half new pence) per week for the use of the coal-shed. She refused.

• CA held that the privilege of using the shed was converted into an easement by s.62 because at the time the lease was conveyed the privilege existed. 

Jenkins LJ

First, the section is not confined to rights which, as a matter of law, were so annexed or appurtenant to the property conveyed at the time of the conveyance as to make them actual legally enforceable rights. Thus, on the severance of a piece of land in common ownership, the quasi easements de facto enjoyed in respect of it by one part of the land over another will pass although, of course, as a matter of law, no man can have a right appendant or appurtenant to one part of his property exercisable by him over the other part of his property.

Secondly, the right, in order to pass, need not be one to which the owner or occupier for the time being of the land has had what may be described as a permanent title. A right enjoyed merely by permission is enough.

• There is an exception:

  • In the circumstances of a case where there could have been no expectation that the enjoyment of the right could be other than temporary.

  • E.g. If I know a building is going to be put up soon then s.62/Wheeldon cannot impute an easement into the agreement for a right to light if the building is known to block it out. 

Gardner

• This is bad: although leases are able to deprive the owner of their own use of the property, easements cannot (Copeland v Greenhalf).

• Here, the granting of an easement to using the shed appears to do just that, since the owner cannot use the shed while Wright is doing so.

• This makes s.62 very wide, and may turn mere favours that neither party intends to be an easement into one. 

ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS - KEY POINTS

• Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 isn't restricted to rights that were automatically connected to the property at the time of the conveyance, making them legally enforceable.

• As a result, even if a piece of land that was once owned jointly is divided, the quasi-easements that were practically enjoyed with regard to one portion of the land over another will remain.

FACTS

• Mrs. Wright had initially rented a top-floor apartment from the defendant, MacAdam. Mrs. Wright received permission from Macadam (the defendant) to utilise a coal shed situated in the apartment building's garden as a storage space for her coal while this original lease was still in force.

• The initial lease signed by Mrs. Wright was extended for an additional term. Interestingly, the continued use of the coal yard was not mentioned at any point during the renewal process.

• At a later time, while the second lease was still in effect, Macadam required Mrs. Wright to make a weekly payment of one shilling and sixpence (equal to seven and a half new pence) in exchange for the right to keep using the coal yard. Mrs. Wright refused to accede to this demand.

JUDGEMENT

• The court ruled in favour of Mrs. Wright, establishing that an easement can be implied from a grant.

COMMENTARY

• Since it broadens the range of property rights that can be transferred, which might be viewed as unfair on the part of a lessor, this decision becomes especially pertinent when a plot of land that was formerly owned jointly is separated or divided.

RELATED CASES

• Copeland v Greenhalf

• Moncrieff v Jamieson

• Grigsby v Melville

• Goldberg v Edwards

• Wheeldon v Burrows