Sargeant and Another v Macepark (Whittlebury) Ltd: ChD 5 Mar 2003

The servient owner granted a lease of easements to the dominant owner, to provide a means of access to the dominant land, and from the dominant land (an hotel) to the Silverstone racing circuit. Subsequently the hotel owner negotiated a more direct easement to the hcircuit, and was to pay for it. The dominant owner claimed that the people using the leased easements would, by exiting the dominant land over the new easement, be benefitting that land.
Held: Such ancillary use for the non-dominant land was a benefit outside the scope of an easement unless there was either no benefit or profit to the non-dominant land, or the exetent of the use of the non-dominant land was insubstantial. Here the proposed use of the ‘exit’ easement could not be described as insubstantial.


Gabriel Moss QC


Times 29-Mar-2003, Gazette 15-May-2003


England and Wales


CitedAlvis v Harrison HL 1989
The dominant tenement lay on both sides of the servient land, a driveway running North South leading to the A73 highway. To the West of the driveway, on part of the dominant tenement, stood a house. The owner of the house wished to construct a new . .
CitedPeacock and Another v Custins and Another CA 14-Nov-2000
The conveyance of a field constituting the dominant land to the claimants was expressed to be subject to the benefit of a right of way over land owned by the defendants, enabling the claimants to reach the dominant land ‘at all times and for all . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.180362