Rangeley
Absence of DT and ST merely creates a licence
Re Ellenborough Park
Four requirements for an easement:
Harris v Fowler
Easement may not be extended once granted to encompass larger area
Hill v Tupper
Easement must benefit DT otherwise it is merely a licence
Bailey v Stephens
There must be a personal nexus between benefit of the right and use of the land
Copeland v Greenhalf
Easement must not amount to exclusive possession
Batchelor v Marlow
Owner of ST must be left with reasonable use (car parking)
Moncrieff v Jameson
Right to park may be construed as a necessity of vehicular access
Phipps v Pears
Negative easements restricting use of the ST are frowned upon
Dalton v Agnus
Right to light only exists if it is in relation to specific windows
City of London Brewery Co
Right to light only extends to the point required for ‘comfortable use of the premises’
Aldred’s Case
There is no right to a view
Hunter v Canary Wharf
There is no right to TV reception
Regis Property v Redman
Easement must not impose a duty on ST to act positively/spend money
Crow v Wood
An easement to maintain fencing is a valid positive easement
s1(1) LPA 1925
Easement will only be legal if held as a fee simple or a term of years absolute
s52(1) LPA 1925
Easement must be granted by deed
ss1(2) and (3) LP(MP)A 1989
A deed will only be valid if:
s62 LPA 1925
Wright v MacAdam
For an easement to be implied into the conveyance, there must be:
s205 LPA 1925
A conveyance includes the transfer of a freehold estate or assignment/grant of a lease
Sovmots Investments v SoS for the Environment
There must be diversity of ownership/occupation for an easement to be implied into the conveyance
P&S Platt v Crouch
The rule in Sovmots does not necessarily apply
London Corp v Briggs
An easement may be impliedly reserved for the seller where there is a necessity to retain it otherwise the DT would be unusable