Wheeldon v burrows (1879)

From Law Wiki | Law student Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Previous (What is recoverable?)
Next (White Paper)

(1879) LR 12 ch d 31. The facts of this case are no longer particular well-known -- they concern
whether an easement of light 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 quasi easements
before sale, and are necessary for reasonable enjoyment of the land. The rule frequently arises in
relation to an easement of access. 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