By a conveyance the owner of a spring granted to a neighbour the right to take and use water. He now said that the extent of water taken was excessive.
Held: No identical gtant was found from decided cases. The grant was not an easement but a profit a prendre as argued, but a simple right to take the amount of water described. The grant of the right to effect in priority to the spring owner’s own needs for his land. He retained the right to the residue of water only.
Judges:
Sedley LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ, Jacob LJ
Citations:
Times 24-Jan-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 88
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Beauchamp v Frome Rural District Council CA 1938
The court considered a grant of rights to take water. Sir Wilfred Greene MR said: ‘It was a grant of the residue of what should reach them after the water had been taken by the persons entitled to takle water from those branches’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.221717