Stafford and Another v Lee and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 1992 |
| Date | 10 November 1992 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Nourse and Lord Justice Russell
Easement - implied - establishing common intention
A landowner seeking to establish his right to an implied "intended easement" of way over adjoining land had to show that there had been a common intention between the parties that his land should be used in some definite and particular manner and that the easement he claimed was necessary to give effect to that use. It was enough for that common intention, if not expressed, to be proved on a balance of probabilities and it could be implied by reference to a conveyancing plan.
The Court of Appeal so held in dismissing an appeal by the defendants, Cyril Lee and Jacqueline Davey, from the judgment of Judge Willcock in Exeter County Court in July 1991 declaring that the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Eric Stafford, were entitled to a right of way for all residential purposes over Marley Drive, being land belonging to the defendants, at Lympstone, Devon.
Miss A J Baker for the defendants; Mr P S A Rossdale for the plaintiffs.
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE said that the question was whether a right of way claimed by the plaintiffs as appurtenant to their land fell into the second class of implied easements described in Pwllbach Colliery Co Ltd v WoodmanELR ([1915] AC 634) and known as "intended easements".
That question depended on the effect of a deed of gift by which the land was conveyed in 1955. By that deed the land, an area of woodland and a pond that fronted Marley Drive, had been conveyed by the defendants' predecessors in title to a predecessor in title of the plaintiffs.
The deed contained no express grant of a right of way over the drive to the public highway.
In 1989 the plaintiffs obtained planning permission to build a house on the land. Thereupon the defendants asserted that the plaintiffs had no right to use Marley Drive for their residential purposes.
No oral evidence had been called at the trial but the judge held that the plaintiffs were entitled to invoke the principle stated by Lord Parker of Waddington in Pwllbach Colliery (at p646):
"The law will readily imply the grant or reservation of such easements as may be necessary to give effect to the common intention of the parties to a grant of real property, with reference to the manner or purposes in and for which the land … is to be used. But it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Easteye Ltd v Malhotra Property Investments Ltd
...particular user. Then he must show that the easements he claims are necessary to give effect to it.” Stafford & Anor v Lee & Anor [1993] 65 P. & C.R. 172 per Nourse LJ at 175 and Pwllbach at 646. c. “…an implied grant had to be based on more than merely reasonableness or usual practice …, b......
-
David Wood and Another v Edward Alexander Waddington
...which was described by Lord Parker in Pwllbach Colliery Co Ltd v Woodman [1915] AC 634 at 646 which was applied by the Court of Appeal in Stafford v Lee (1992) 65 P&CR 172 and Donovan v Rana [2014] EWCA Civ 99. In this class of case, two things must be shown: first, there must have been a c......
- Chaffe v Kingsley
-
Andrew David Scott Walby and Another v Malcolm Seamus Scott Walby and Another
...not suffice to show that the facts are simply consistent with the implication of the reservation of an easement. 45 In Stafford v Lee (1993) 65 P&CR 172, a case of implied grant, Nourse LJ commented on Lord Parker's statement in Pwllbach and said that the court was less "ready" to imply a r......