Adealon International Proprietary Ltd v London Borough of Merton: CA 25 Apr 2007

The claimant had bought land from the council. The only means of access was over land retained by the council but there was no grant of a right of way. The claimant now appealed refusal of a right of way by necessity.
Held: At the time of the sale off, the land was not surrounded by land belonging to the grantor, and was also next to the highway. Nor had their been any common intention of the parties that a right of way of necessity should be granted. The court rejected the submission that Adealon was entitled to an easement of necessity, by operation of law, and regardless of the existence of possible alternatives over land of third parties.
Carnwath LJ, Silber LJ, Mummery LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 362, [2007] 1 WLR 1898
England and Wales
CitedBarry v Hasseldine 1952
The grantee’s land was surrounded partly by land of the vendor, and partly by that of other parties, including a disused airfield owned by a third party. For some time following the grant they had been able to obtain access over the airfield by . .
CitedManjang v Drammeh PC 1990
The owner of a strip of land alongside the River Gambia and which was ‘regularly and without inconvenience’ accessed by his customers from the river failed in a contention that his land was ‘landlocked’ so as to give him a way of necessity over . .
CitedWheeldon 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 . .
CitedCorporation of London v Riggs CA 1880
The court considered whether a right of way of necessity had been granted: ‘the real question I have to decide is this – whether, on a grant of land wholly surrounding a close, the implied grant, or re grant, of a right of way by the grantee to the . .
CitedTitchmarsh v Royston Water Company Limited 1899
The land owner sought a grant of right of way of necessity. His land was blocked on three sides by land of the vendors and on the fourth side by a route which ran in a cutting, which would make connection with the granted land difficult.
Held: . .
CitedHansford v Jago 1921
The fact that a way is not itself made up or identifiable on the ground may not be fatal to the establishment of an easement under Wheeldon v. Burrows or section 62 of the 1925 Act, if the ends of the way are apparent and it is clear that it was the . .
CitedNickerson v Barraclough CA 13-Dec-1980
The defendant appealed a finding that the plaintiff had a right of way of necessity over his land. When looking to see whether a grant of a right of way of necessity was implied, the court should ascertain the intention of the parties and public . .
CitedNickerson v Barraclough (2) ChD 2-Jan-1980
The Vice-Chancellor said: ‘if land is conveyed in circumstances which otherwise would create a way of necessity, or a way implied from the common intention of the parties based on a necessity apparent from the deeds, does public policy prevent the . .
CitedNickerson v Barraclough (1) ChD 1980
The court considered an assertion that a right of necessity was implied into a deed.
Held: ‘In the present case the land conveyed was plainly intended to be used for building purposes, and of course it plainly needed access for building . .
CitedNorth Sydney Printing Property Ltd v Sobemo Investment Co. Ltd 1971
(Supreme Court of New South Wales in Equity) A company sold part of its land, which abutted on to a street. The retained land had no access to a highway, but the company intended subsequently to sell it to the local authority as an addition to a . .
CitedPinnington v Gallard 1853
Mr Dickinson had sold, on the same day in 1839, a piece of land in three separate lots, one to Mr Dearle, and another to Mr Moss. An existing track through Mr Dearle’s lot gave access to Mr Moss’ lot and was used for that purpose for several years . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.251453