The parties owned properties part of a building estate. The properties had been held under leases, but those had been enfranchised. The question was as to how the easements granted by the leases were preserved on enfranchisement. A particular question arose as to the position of the boundary and whether neighbours had a right of way over a pathway through one party’s garden.
Held: The plots continued to enjoy on enfranchisement the same easements as existed under the leases: (Chadwick LJ) ‘the outcome of the present appeal turns, . . . on whether [the] plots were entitled, under the leases . . . to reciprocal rights of way over the pathway which lies between them. If they were so entitled, then . . . each will enjoy a right of way over that half of the pathway which is in the ownership of the other. But if either plot was not entitled, under the lease upon which it was held at the time of enfranchisement, to a right of way over the other half of the pathway, then that plot did not acquire a right of way over the pathway when the two plots were enfranchised in 1976. The reason is that the other plot was not, then, subject to a tenant’s incumbrance. In such a case, the right of way could only be acquired (if at all) by prescription since 1976. ‘
Chadwick LJ, Longmore LJ, Lewison J
[2006] EWCA Civ 162, Times 24-Mar-2006, [2007] Ch 1, [2006] 3 WLR 572
Bailii
Leasehold Reform Act 1967, Law of Property Act 1925 62
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re Dulwich College Estate’s Application 1974
The Court approved an estate management scheme under s19. . .
Cited – Wheeldon v Burrows CA 17-Jun-1879
Quasi-Easements granted on sale of part of Estate
S owned a workshop and an adjoining plot of land. The workshop had three windows looking out over the plot. The property was sold in separate lots at auction. The land was sold with no express reservation of any easements, and then similarly the . .
Cited – Brown v Alabaster 1888
. .
Cited – Nicholls v Nicholls 1889
. .
Cited – Donnelly v Adams 1905
(Ireland) . .
Cited – Cable v Bryant 1908
A tenant sought a right to ventilation enjoyed by land let to a tenant. It was argued that there could be no implied easement over adjoining property of a lessor where the adjoining property was already let out. It would be an easement in reversion. . .
Cited – Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 28-Apr-1977
The section in the 1881 Act does not apply to a quasi-easement because ‘When land is under one ownership one cannot speak in any intelligible sense of rights, or privileges, or easements being exercised over one part for the benefit of another. . .
Cited – Pwllbach Colliery Co v Woodman HL 1915
Whether an easement may be created by implication depends on the circumstances under which it is said to have been made. The law implies a grant of such easements as may be necessary to give effect to the common intention of the parties to a grant . .
Cited – Goldberg v Edwards 1950
. .
Cited – Byrnlea Property Investments Ltd v Ramsay CA 1969
It was a requirement under the 1967 Act for the notice of a lessee, seeking to extend his interest under that Act, to indicate whether he was seeking the freehold or an extended lease. The tenant failed to do so.
Held: This failure was fatal. . .
Cited – Cory v Davies 1923
The second proposition in Wheeldon v Burrows is subject to exceptions, and reciprocal rights and reservations into leases should be implied. . .
Cited – Official Custodian for Charities v Goldridge CA 1973
The social policy underlying the 1967 Act is that ‘the land belongs in equity to the landowner and the house belongs in equity to the occupying leaseholder.’ . .
Cited by:
Cited – Wall v Collins and Another CA 17-May-2007
Properties, when leasehold, had acquired rights of way by prescription over neighbouring land. The freehold interests were acquired, and the claimant now appealed a decision that the right of way acquired under his lease had disappeared.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.238789