The dominant land, which had always been used for agricultural purposes, had a prescriptive right to drain surface water over neighbouring land. Though the proposed development of a housing estate on the dominant land, would be very substantial, the right could still be enjoyed and would not be lost. An easement had been acquired by prescription, but after such acquisition, the nature of the use of the dominant tenement changed, substantially increasing the burden of the easement.
Held: Such increased usage could lead to a loss or suspension of the easement. The result might however differ according to the nature of the easement. It would be more readily follow in right of way cases than in rights of support. In this case a right of discharge of water from land developed from agricultural use would not lead to a loss of the easement.
Citations:
Times 18-Apr-2000, Gazette 18-May-2000, [2001] Ch 371
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – McAdams Homes Ltd v Robinson and Another CA 27-Feb-2004
The defendant blocked the line of a sewer. The claimant alleged that it had an easement and sought the cost of building the alternative pipe. The question to be answered was ‘Where an easement is granted by implication on the sale of a property, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.78022