Milner’s Safe Company Limited v Great Northern and City Railway Company: ChD 1907

A right of way had been impliedly granted in favour of a number of terraced houses over a passage running to the back of those houses, which were used at the time of grant for residential and warehouse use. A right to use the passageway for an underground railway station was sought.
Held: The court pointed to a significant difference the use as a station of the dominant land would have on the consequent use of the passage: ‘a large number of travellers’ wished to use the passage ‘especially in the morning and again in the evening . . must necessarily impede the work of [other dominant owners] in loading and unloading their vans’. The defendants had ‘made it impossible that the passage shall be used for the purpose for which it was designed’. ‘[A] railway station is not merely in its construction, but in its mode of occupation, something entirely different from any dwelling house, warehouse or even manufactory, which could have been erected on the land.’
Kekewich J
[1907] 1 Ch 208
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedWimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators v Dixon CA 1875
A prescriptive right of way had been enjoyed in connection with the use of the dominant land for agricultural purposes, which had included enlarging the farmhouse and rebuilding a cottage. The dominant owner could not use the way for carting . .

Cited by:
CitedMcAdams 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, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.194015