Introduction
This essay examines the potential claims to easements for Peroni, Moretti, Asahi, Stella, and Madri in distinct scenarios involving land access and usage rights under English property law. An easement, as a right to use another’s land for a specific purpose, must typically satisfy certain legal criteria, including necessity, long use, or express grant. This analysis will assess each case individually, considering statutory provisions such as the Law of Property Act 1925 and relevant case law, to advise on the likelihood of successful claims. The essay aims to provide a sound understanding of easement principles while evaluating the applicability of legal doctrines to each situation.
Peroni: Oral Tenancy and Implied Easement
Peroni, under a three-year oral tenancy granted by Bud in 2024, faces restricted access to San Miguel House across Drinkwater Farm’s private road. Although the tenancy is likely enforceable under the Law of Property Act 1925, s.54(2) as a short-term lease, the lack of a written agreement complicates an easement claim. Vehicular access, historically used, suggests a potential implied easement by necessity, as access to the cottage appears otherwise unfeasible. Case law, such as *Nickerson v Barraclough* (1981), supports easements of necessity where land would be landlocked without access (Smith, 2019). However, Bud’s refusal highlights the precarious nature of implied rights without formal documentation. Peroni may argue for an easement, but success depends on proving absolute necessity, a threshold often strictly interpreted by courts.
Moretti: Lack of Express Easement
Moretti, having purchased land from Heineken last month, discovers her property is accessible only by canal, with no express easement over Heineken’s retained land. Without a formal grant, Moretti might claim an implied easement under the rule in *Wheeldon v Burrows* (1879), which allows rights previously enjoyed by the vendor to pass to the purchaser if continuous and necessary (Gray and Gray, 2011). However, the absence of prior use or express mention in the conveyance weakens this claim. Furthermore, necessity must be absolute, and alternative access by canal, though inconvenient, may defeat the claim. Moretti’s position appears legally untenable unless negotiation with Heineken yields a formal grant.
Asahi: Scope of Express Easement
Asahi, granted an express vehicular right of way over Estrella’s land in 2023 for cars only, faces refusal for heavy goods vehicles needed for construction. The express easement’s limitation to cars binds Asahi, as easements are strictly construed per their terms (Megarry and Wade, 2012). An argument for variation under necessity or mutual intent (given the agreed purpose of building a cottage) is unlikely to succeed without evidence of Estrella’s consent to expanded use. Courts rarely extend express easements beyond stipulated terms, as seen in *Regency Villas v Diamond Resorts* (2018). Asahi’s claim for broader access is weak, and negotiation or legal variation of the easement may be the only viable solution.
Stella: Claim Based on Prior Use
Stella, who purchased Kronenbourg Cottage in 2022, seeks to continue using a shortcut path across Cruzcampo’s land, a practice Cruzcampo followed. Without an express grant, Stella might rely on the doctrine of prescription under the Prescription Act 1832, requiring 20 years of continuous use “as of right.” However, prior use by Cruzcampo, as the previous owner, does not automatically transfer to Stella unless formally documented. The principles in *Wheeldon v Burrows* may not apply if the use was merely permissive. Stella’s claim appears unsubstantiated without evidence of long-standing, non-permissive use, leaving her reliant on Cruzcampo’s goodwill.
Madri: Revocable Licence over Pool Access
Madri, previously permitted by Corona to use an outdoor pool, now faces denied access. This arrangement constitutes a personal licence, revocable at will, rather than an easement, as it lacks attachment to land and concerns a temporary privilege (Gray and Gray, 2011). Easements require a dominant and servient tenement, a condition unmet here, as Madri’s right is not linked to specific property ownership. Case law, such as *Hill v Tupper* (1863), confirms that personal rights cannot constitute easements. Madri has no legal claim and must accept Corona’s revocation.
Conclusion
In summary, the prospects of easement claims vary across the scenarios. Peroni may argue for an implied easement by necessity, though success is uncertain without formal agreement. Moretti and Stella face significant hurdles due to the absence of express grants or sufficient prior use, rendering their claims weak. Asahi’s express easement limits broader use, necessitating renegotiation, while Madri’s situation clearly falls outside easement law as a revocable licence. These cases underscore the importance of formal documentation in property rights and the strict legal thresholds for implied easements. The parties are generally advised to seek negotiated solutions where legal claims appear tenuous, highlighting the practical challenges of easement disputes in English law.
References
- Gray, K. and Gray, S.F. (2011) Elements of Land Law. 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Megarry, R. and Wade, W. (2012) The Law of Real Property. 8th edn. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
- Smith, R.J. (2019) Property Law. 9th edn. Harlow: Pearson Education.
