Facts: Mrs Edwards owned a property comprising a house and annex. The annex was connected to the back of the house by a covered passage-way. The annex could be accessed either through the house and covered passage-way, or by an outside passage which ran over waste ground. Mrs Edwards let the annex to a tenant. The court of appeal considered whether a right of access through the house could be implied into the lease under the doctrine in Wheeldon v Burrows

Held: “[In] my judgment it does not follow that a way through the front door of another's premises and through the ground floor and passages is even prima facie necessary for the reasonable or convenient enjoyment of premises behind.” (per Evershed M.R.)

Facts: The owner of land on the bank of a canal (the dominant tenement) claimed that his right to operate boats on the canal (the servient tenement) amounted to an easement

Held: The claim was rejected by the court on the basis that the claimant's contractual right to operate boats on the canal did not accommodate the dominant tenement but instead delivered a mer

Facts: A water company supplied water to the dominant and servient land through pipes running under the servient land. A charge for the water was made by means of a meter situated at the entrance to the servient land, and the servient owner was responsible for paying the water. The dominant owner sought a declaration that he had the benefit of an easement for the uninterrupted supply of water through the pipes on the defendant’s land

Held: Nicholas J rejected the claim on the basis that the right to a water supply imposed a positive obligation on the servient owner to pay for the supply so as to maintain an uninterrupted flow of water to the dominant land. The Court of Appeal approved the “positive obligation” principle, but held it inapplicable on the facts. Browne-Wilkinson LJ: “No positive obligation is imposed on the servient land by such right to the passage of water supplied by another. It is the classic form of an easement of passage. The servient owner cannot do any physical act interrupting the passage of such water without being liable for an actionable interference. On the other hand, the servient owner is under no obligation to ensure that any water does in fact reach the private water system.”

Facts: A house and adjacent farm were in common ownership (owned by one person). There were 2 routes to access the house - one from the east and the other from the south traversing the farm. As they were using the route across the farm to get to the house there was a quasi-easement i.e. an easement shaped pratice. The claimant (Wheeler) bought the house. THe conveycance contained no express grant of easement over the farm. Wheeler claimed that a right of way over the farm must be implied into the conveyance of the house under the doctrine in Wheeldon v Burrows

Held: The Court of Appeal rejected the claim (under the third requirement of this doctrine) i.e. the use of the road across the farm was not necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property because of the entrance to the house from the east

⇒ “For my part, I do not consider that the south entrance was necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of Kingdown Farm House” (per Staughton L.J.)

Facts: The owner of 2 buildings granted a 21yr lease of the cellars underneath the buildings. The tenant covenanted to keep the premises open as a restaurant, to control and eliminate all odours from the premises, and to comply with health regulations. Regulation 21 of the Food Hygiene Regulations 1955 required every restaurant to be sufficiently ventilation. On inspection by the public health inspector, the restaurant was held to be in violation of Regulation 21. The inspector declared that the restaurant must install a proper ventilation system attached to the outside wall of the 2 buildings. The tenant asked the landlord if he would agree to the ventilation duct being fixed to the walls of his property. He refused

Held: The Court of Appeal implied into the lease an easement giving the tenant the right to put up a ventilation duct on the outside wall of the two buildings. There was a common intention to use the land as a restaurant, a definite and particular manner, amd it would be impossible to comply with Regulation 21 without implying the easement.