|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
Wheeldon v Burrows (1879)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:38 2006
(1879) LR 12 ChD 31. The facts of this case are no longer particular well-known --
they concern whether an EasementOfLight arose in favour of a workshop when
the adjacent land was severed and passed into different ownership. What remains
current is the rule stated by Thesiger LJ. The rule as generally interpreted
is this: if a part
of a larger piece of land is sold, then the purchaser obtains as easements any
rights over the vendor's land that were exercised as QuasiEasements before sale,
and are necessary for reasonable enjoyment of the land. The rule frequently
arises in relation to an EasementOfAccess. However, there is some ambiguity in
the wording, which has caused problems. The exact words of
the judgement are ``...there will pass to the grantee all continuous and
apparent easements .. or, in other words, all those easements which are necessary
to the reasonable enjoyment...''. The problem is that Thesiger LJ expresses the
notion that easements (quasi-easements) are necessary, and the notion that they are
`continuous and apparent' as if they were the same thing. Normally they are; in most
cases when an easement is `necessary' it will also be `continuous and apparent'.
Difficulties arise when these two tests do not produce the same results.
The rule in Wheeldon v Burrows has similar consequences to the statutory
provision in s.62 of the LPA1925.
-- Main.KevinBoone - 15 Jan 2004
LandAndPropertyLaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|