Land Law: Easement Cases

Front 1

Pye v Mumford

Back 1

Cultivation and manuring the same farm belonging and appertaining, the right and privilege in every year and at all times of the year, of entering into and upon the close in which to cart and carry all the muck.
“In the same way, an allegation of a twenty years’ enjoyment of an easement under [671] s.2, means enjoyment in the character of an easement; and, under a traverse of such allegation, a unity of possession during the twenty years may be shown.

Front 2

Miller v Emcer Products Ltd

Back 2

Easement for use of adjoining premises. The right to use two lavatories on upper floors were occupied by a third party. The right which the landlords had purported to grant was a legal easement and was part of the demised premises to which the covenant for quiet enjoyment contained in the underlease related.
The tenant was prevented by the third party from exercising his right use one of the lavatories and he sued his landlords, alleging a breach of an implied covenant.

Front 3

Lemaitre v Davis

Back 3

Right of support from buildings. Where ancient buildings belonging to different owners adjoin each other there is a right of support from the building as well as from the land; and this right of support can be claimed under the provisions of the Prescription Act.
The Plaintiff alleged that the wall of the Mitre Tavern…depended for its support, the right to have had been uninterruptedly and openly enjoyed.

Front 4

Hervey v Smith

Back 4

Right to use flues of adjoining property. Where the defendant had obstructed the passage of smoke from the flues used by the Plaintiffs for several years, but their right to which was doubtful, by placing tiles upon the top of the chimney-pots, a mandatory injunction was granted upon interlocutory motion to compel him to remove the tiles.

Front 5

Phipps v Pears

Back 5

Protection from the weather (X demolishes house exposing Y's house to weather damage). No known easement. It would be an undue restriction to neighbour's enjoyment of land to prevent him developing his property.

Front 6

Webb v Bird

Back 6

Free and uninterrupted passage of the current of wind and air to his mill. Such a claim may exist at common law, although it was clear in this case that none exists in this case that either by grant or by prescription. To found a right under the 2nd section of the statute, the plaintiff must show that it is a claim which might have been made at common law.

Front 7

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Back 7

Presence of building interrupted television signal. A person's right to build on their land was not restricted because their building might interfere with a neighbour's enjoyment of the land. A nuisance action based on interference due to noise, dirt or smell might succeed, whereas interference with a television signal would not. It had been for many years been regarded as settled law that a person who had no right in the affected land could not sue for private nuisance.

Front 8

Copeland v Greenhalf

Back 8

To use a strip of land to store vehicles and to repair them on that strip. Could not amount to an easement as it amounted more to a claim of joint user of the land and went wholly outside any normal idea of an easement.