Someone recently bought our
students are currently browsing our notes.
X
Someone recently bought our
students are currently browsing our notes.
This is an extract of our What Can Be An Easement document, which we sell as part of our Land Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Land Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
What can be an easement?
Examples
*
Easement = right to do something on another's land o OR (in a few cases) right to prevent something being done on another's land o E.g. Rights of way, rights of light, rights of support
? And any other rights which have been properly created. Requirements:
*
Re Ellenborough Park [1956]: o Evershed MR:
? Four characteristics of an easement:
*
(1) there must be a dominant and a servient tenement:
*
(2) an easement must "accommodate" the dominant tenement:
*
(3) dominant and servient owners must be different persons, and
*
(4) a right over land cannot amount to an easement, unless it is capable of forming the subject-matter of a grant. Dominant and servient tenements
*
One piece of land must be adversely affected by the right (the servient land) o The other piece of land must benefit from the right (the dominant land)
? Thus, you can't have a right to cross someone's land to reach a helicopter pad if you didn't own the helicopter pad
*
Because you would have not land that benefitted from the right o And it therefore wouldn't be an easement
? Smith: is considered trite law, but no conclusive reason for this requirement. o Need not identify dominant tenement in easement document
? But is good practise to indentify it to prevent confusion. Accommodation
*
Can't just be a benefit to the people on the land o Must actually benefit the land or the way the land is used itself.
? E.g. Easement for free Liverpool tickets benefits land owners but not land itself
*
Whereas easement for right of way across neighbour's land to road benefits my land itself b/c makes access more convenient. o Re Ellenborough Park [1956]:
? Evershed MR:
*
it is not sufficient to show that the right increased the value of the property conveyed, o unless it is also shown that it was connected with the normal enjoyment of that property
? this is a question primarily of fact.
*
In business use o Moody v Steggles [1879]: For 50 years, a sign board had hung against D's house advertising C's public house. D attempted to remove the signboard.
? Fry J:
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Land Law Notes.
