Profits a prendre - rights to take something from land of another (not on syllabus)

Quasi-easements - potential easements - important for Wheeldon v Burrows - not an easement when own all of the land, but could be when separated - must be obviously used

St Edmundsbury & Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance v Clark (No 2) - Looked at evidence of intent at time of reservation to decide if right of way allowed for vehicles - when land was sold the gate posts there were only four feet apart - therefore right of way only allowed on foot

Attwood v Bovis Home - doesn't work if nature of burden substantially changes e.g. builds flats - should reserve what you need and a little more

Massey v Boulder - substantially different purpose - right of way only from and to two specific places

Grant - land owner creates a right in favour of a new owner/tenant of part of land, over his retained land

London & Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd

Hill v Tupper - held not to be an easement because benefited the business, not the land itself - though sometimes these are very closely linked

Moody v Steggles - hanging pub sign on servient land - court held was an easement - that building had always been used as a pub - inextricably linked and would benefit any owner

Must be occupied by different people - includes leasing etc.

William Aldred's Case - right to privacy - not sufficiently precise

E.g. Right of storage - Wright v Macadam - by analogy = right to park - London & Blenheim

Regis Properies v Redman - easement to provide hot water not recognisable

Jones v Pritchard - grant of easement ordinarily carries grant of such ancillary rights as are reasonably necessary to its exercise or enjoyment - but grant to right over driveway cannot place servient owner under obligation to keep driveway in repair

But: Rance v Elvin - interpreted as a right to allow water to pass through pipes, with dominant owner responsible for their share of the bill - right to uninterrupted passage of water, not supply of water

Green v Ashco Horticulturists - if need to repeatedly ask permission, can't claim as right

Kettel v Bloomfold Ltd - acknowledged that Moncrieff better and pushed them together - not very helpful

Must be substantively registered if servient land is registered - s27 LRA 2002 - if servient land unregistered, legal interests bind the world

Must generally comply with s2 LP(MP)A - in writing, all terms and signed by both parties - easements for uncertain terms need only comply with s53(1)(a) LPA - in writing

Must be protected by s32 Notice if land is registered - otherwise purchaser takes free - s29 LRA

If unregistered, protect by D(iii) Land Charge - otherwise purchaser takes free - s4(6) LCA 1972

Test - can the land be used at all without the implied easement? - Manjang v Drammeh (1990) - court refused - claimant bought land next to river and claimed right of way over enighbouring land - said had alternative of sailing - needs to be an absolute necessity - right or way where completely landlocked

Adealon v Merton Council (200&) - court refused - bought land between road and train station with intention of building service station - sold only other access and failed to get planning permission to cross road - hadn't reserved his right of way

People have tried with rights of drainage etc. but always refsued because can still use land - only where can't access

Court agreed to imply right into lease document - basement leased to tenant to use as a restaurant, with added covenant agreeing to comply with all health regulations etc. - both sold on and second owner of servient land complained about food smell- health inspectors said needed ventilator and was a breach of covenant not to have one - Wong claimed implied right to use upstairs ventilator - allowed because couldn't comply with original intention of restaurant otherwise

Stafford v Lee (1992) - should really have argued necessity here - court allowed because remaining dominant land developed residentially according to common intention - couldn't actually do without right of way

Used at the time of the grant by the owners of the whole for the benefit of the part sold/leased

Works to imply easements where originally no diversity of occupants - part sold will get all rights original sole owner enjoyed - only works for new owner claiming easements not landlords wanting something they hadn't retained originally

Reasonably regular use and something showing e.g. path for right of way or manhole for drainage

Wheeler v Saunders (1995) - sold houses on property but didn't grant right of way across main driveway - each buyer claimed even though all had alternative routes - quasi-easement and was apparent, but equally convenient to use alternative so not allowed

Millman v Ellis (1996) - same as Wheeler but not equally convenient - found necessary for enhanced enjoyment - was in use at time of partition

Ordinary operation of s62 - transfers the benefit of existing easements on transfer of land

Landowner owns and occupies one plot, and other plot already leased to tenant - during lease allowed to use landowner's plot internally - when new lease of second plot granted, informal permission becomes legal easement

Wright v McAdam (1949) - coalshed which landlord tried to charge new tenant to use for storage - found she had an easement - must be revoked or excluded from new lease

Casual intermittent permission is not enought - Green v Ashco Horticulturalist Ltd (1966)

Sovmots Invest's v Secretary of State for Environment (1979) - only works when there is existing permission - different from Wheeldon

P & S Platt Limited v Crouch (2004) - don't need two occupants before new lease or transfer - can be done first time

Wood v Waddington (2015) - Platt confirmed in Wood - essentially makes Wheeldon defunct except where there is no deed

5. Acquired by prescription (grants only) - won't be examined on this

Principle originally developed by Upjohn J in Copeland v Greenhalf