The parties disputed the effective extent of an easement which gave an express right to pass and repass providing access across a yard to a side door at premises on which a business was conducted at the time of the grant.
Held: The court declined to limit the extent of the express reservation of a right to pass and repass over the whole of a yard coloured brown on the plan to the deed, by reference to the restriction at the point of entry consisting of a pair of gates hung on substantial pillars. The other terms of the grant, by its reference to workmen and the auction mart, were confirmatory of the width of the right granted.
There was an implied right to bring in and take out from the premises goods of the nature referable to the business (it was a furniture business), and to do this using vehicles of a size which could be expected. A further implication was that there was a right to halt in the yard to load and unload because otherwise there would be no point or utility in the access right conferred. These were two necessary implications found to arise as a direct result of the condition that the premises were in at the time of the grant. The rights to park, and to load and unload vehicles was an incident of easement and Upjohn J described it: ‘It is only an incident of the right of way expressly granted and may be described as ancillary to that easement because without that right he cannot substantially enjoy that which has been reserved to him.’
Judges:
Upjohn J
Citations:
[1953] 1 WLR 1064, [1953] 2 All ER 728
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Stanton, Mills; Mills v Blackwell and Blackwell CA 15-Jul-1999
Two strips of land were adjacent but separated by a wall with a gate. The owner of one plot was given broadly phrased rights of way over both strips. He removed part of the wall over the neighbour’s land in order to make full use of the wider strip. . .
Cited – St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance v Clark (No.2) CA 1973
When looking at a contract ‘one must construe the document according to the natural meaning of the words contained in the document as a whole, read in the light of surrounding circumstances.’
The contra preferetem rule can only come into play . .
Cited – Minor v Groves CA 20-Nov-1997
The parties were neighbours, with houses adjacent to a right of way. Slabs had been laid next to the houses forming a raised pavement. The respondents had sought to enclose their area of this raised pavement, building a porch. They now appealed an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.254435
