Chapter 11 Scenario questions

. Joe owns High House. Access to High House is provided by way of an expressly granted easement (right of way) across the neighbouring land, Low Cottage, which is owned by Karl. This means there is access directly from the main road across Karl's land to Joe's house. Joe has recently acquired new land adjoining High House called The Paddock and Joe has built a garage on this land. Joe wants to use the previously granted easement to access the garage. Advise Joe. Select one of the following which most accurately reflects the position.

As the original easement was only granted to provide access to High House, in no circumstances, can it be used to access the newly acquired land, The Paddock.

An easement of access granted for a house can always be exercised to access a garage connected to that house.

As the original easement was granted between two neighbouring parcels of land, it is taken as being exercisable in relation to any additional land acquired that is connected to the original land.

Whether the easement extends to the newly acquired land depends on whether exercise of the easement for the benefit for that new land can be regarded as merely 'ancillary' to the use of the easement for High House.

. Lou enjoyed an easement of drainage over land which comprised of one single-storey residential building. Lou planned to redevelop the land, demolish the property, and build a small factory in which she would manufacture shoes. Lou has come to you for advice as to whether she can continue to make use of the easement of drainage when the nature of the land changes. Select one of the following.

Lou has nothing to worry about. If an easement of drainage exists benefiting her land it makes no difference if that land is redeveloped to embrace a new purpose or user.

Lou probably has nothing to worry about. If an easement of drainage exists benefiting her land, the new purpose or user to which the land will be put will not constitute an intensification in the use of the easement.

Lou probably has nothing to worry about. Only if the servient land owner provided, as part of the original grant of easement, that there could be no change in the use of the land will Lou be in trouble here.

Lou should be worried. The new use to which the land is to be put is a radical change of character and will result in a significant increase in the burden on the servient owner.

. Meena has recently purchased a plot of land surrounded by water on three sides with access only by foot. Having considered all options, Meena, now wants to develop the land but, for this, she will need vehicular access. Meena feels strongly that vehicular access is necessary for enjoyment of the land. You are asked to advise Meena as to her prospect of convincing a court that an easement can be implied on the grounds of necessity on these facts. Select one the of the following.

Implication of easements by necessity are no longer possible after the decision in Wood v Waddington (2015).

Meena will have difficulty persuading the court that vehicular access is strictly 'necessary' in these circumstances as the land is not landlocked in view of the access by foot.

For all intents and purposes, this land is landlocked and so, if the land is to be put to any useful purpose, vehicular access is required and therefore should be implied.

Implication of an easement by necessity requires Meena to demonstrate that it was in the contemplation of the parties when the land was sold that the land would be put to a specific purpose and the easement is necessary for that purpose.

. Nelly owns two plots of land. One comprises a woodland and tarmacked road which is used to access the second plot where Nelly has built a house. Nelly, who lives most of the year out of the country, has used the road to access the house whenever she has been back in the UK though there is also access to the house via a small, rough track behind the house. Planning to live abroad permanently, Nelly decides to sell the plot of land on which the house is built to Oscar but retain the plot comprising the woodland as she has always found it extremely charming and picturesque. The conveyance of the land to Oscar makes no express mention of the road across the first plot but Oscar wants to make use of the road to access the house as Nelly has used it in the past. Can Oscar use this right of way? Which one of the following statements most accurately reflects the position here?

Oscar can argue that an easement arises by implication on the grounds of necessity and therefore he can use the road to access his newly acquired land.

Oscar can argue that an easement arises by implication on the grounds of common intention and therefore he can use the road to access his newly acquired land.

Oscar can argue that an easement was expressly granted on sale.

Oscar can argue that an easement arises by implication under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) and therefore he can use the road to access his newly acquired land.

Quiz Content