Three properties were dependent upon drainage through the plaintiff’s land. The soakaway system would not support increased usage. The appellant challenged an order denying an easement.
Held: The drainage easement was to be read according to the express words, construed within the context of the time when the easement was granted, and so that reasonable use was limited to the capacity of the drainage installed. Overflows of effluent onto the servient owner’s land from increased use were a nuisance and capable of restraint by injunction.
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice May
Gazette 22-Jul-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1213
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ingram v Morecroft 1863
‘… if a man enter into a covenant to do a particular thing, however absurd, the covenantee is entitled to have the covenant performed; …’ . .
Cited – Wood v Saunders 1875
The dominant land at the time of sale contained a house ‘adapted for about twenty-five inmates, and only part of the drainage of the house rain into the ditch or moat’ on land retained by the vendor. The purchaser subsequently extended the house, . .
Cited – Jones v Pritchard ChD 6-Feb-1908
The grant of an easement ordinarily carries with it the grant of such ancillary rights as are reasonably necessary to its exercise or enjoyment. However the grant of a right of way over a driveway cannot place on the servient owner the obligation to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.144692