The rule of Wheeldon v Burrows
Based on this case,certain requirements need to be satisfied which include :
The rights must be continuous and apparent which means that it must be discoverable on careful inspection and enjoyed over a substantial time period.
The rights must be reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the land.
The rights must be in used at the time of sale.
The rule in Wheeldon v Burrow stated where an X landowner divided his land into 2 plots of land and sells one part over which he has enjoyed a right but retaining one part for himself the purchase Y of the retaining land may acquire those rights over the retained land.
The significant of easement arising under Wheeldon v Burrow  is the fact that it is a legal easement. Besides that it converts quasi easement into easement. Quasi easements are easements which are enjoyed by the landowner over his own land. The rights are converted by implied grant on the property's division.
Quasi easements can become true easement under the rule of Wheeldon v Burrows  but it is different under the view in the case of Re Ellenborough Park  where the landowner cannot enjoy an easement over his own land.
However, the law is inconclusive regarding the aspect of continuous, apparent and for reasonable enjoyment of the property.
In Wheeler v JJ Saunders ltd , the claimant fail as the rights was not necessarily reasonable for the enjoyment of the property.
Millman v Ellis [ 1996] also failed. However, in Hillman v Rogers [ 1998] rights could still be claimed under the rule of Wheeldon v Burrows  although it was not necessary reasonable for the enjoyment of the property.
Easement of Common Intention
There should be evidence of common intention of the parties but it may not be for the necessary enjoyment of the property.
The used is presumed to be within the intention but the rights necessary for that use have not been expressly granted in the grant of land.
There appears to be overlapped between the easement of necessity and easement of common intention.
There rights are impliedly incorporated into the agreement and enforceable as in Stafford v Les  and Wong v Beaumont Properties Trust Ltd .
Easement of Necessity
Without the easement land would be incapable of use.
Implied easement mostly by a right of access.
Unable to exercised if the alternative route appear to be simply inconvenient as in Nickerson v Barraclough .Only granted if alternative access is totally unsuitable.
Are not applicable in cases, where the landowner enter the land in order to carry out repair. The Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 provide a right for a neighbour to seek a court oder to gain access to his neighbour's land in order to carry out essential repairs.
Must be applied through the court. Once granted capable of registration.
The grant of easement may be implied on a deed of transfer. The grant may not be expressly incorporated. The implied easement may take effect in law as it is implied into the transfer of the legal estate. The easement may take effect as overriding interest in the registered land on transfer. However Land Registration Act 2002 has reduced their effect.
Easement which is impliedly granted still need to follow the characteristic of the easement as laid down in Re Ellenborough Park 
The grant of easement
An express grant of easement originated based on the use of words expressly stated the purpose which is integrated into the formal transfer of rights.
In the case where the grant is incorporated into deed, the grant will take effects into law. This will form as part of the deed of transfer or lease.
The easement may arise due to estoppel. In the case as in Crabb v Arul District Council , the grantee relied on a promised of rights / easement and acted to his detriment. This right will be implied into deed and take the effect at law.
The easement may be expressly granted via statute. This include the grant that is made in favour of the privatised utilities such as the power to lay sewer or supply of water and gas.
Easement is an interest in the land.
It will only take effect legally if the easement compiled with the requirement under s52 Law Property Act 1925 where a deed is required. A written document may not account for deed. In this case, easement may arise as equitable easement or just a mere licence.
Equitable easement required to be registered for it to be able to bind the third party purchaser.
Specific features of Easement
Easement may not impose positive burden of the servient owner.
The case of Crow v Wood  is an exception where there is the duty to fence and keeping the fence in repair.
Easement may not amount to exclusive use as in the case of Copeland v Greehalf . Exclusive use may include the storage in the cellar as in Grigsby v Melville  due to the fact that it was rights for unlimited storage in a defined or confined space.
Different issue with Wright v Macadams . In this case, the tenant was able to kept coal in the shed. This prevent the enjoyment of the shed by the landowner. The easement was upheld due to the fact that the landlord was not prevented substantially from the general use of the property.
The easement may also cover the rights to park as long as it will not account to exclusive use of the property or depriving the use of landowner him/ herself as in Batchelor v Marlow .
In case of London and Blenheim Estate ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks ltd  it was concluded that parking in general area or for limited limited time could amount to easement. Parking in a designated area may also be an easement.
Easement of a right to park is an ancillary to the right of access of the vehicle if it was necessary for the enjoyment of the easement of access as in Moncrieff v Jamieson .
This might have been contemplated at the time of grant, due to the fact that the dominant owner might reasonably be expected to do in the exercise of his rights to comfortable and convenient use of the property.
In Dyce v Lady James Hay , the courts have been unwilling to extend the list of rights which are capable to be account as easements. As the rights must be within the naure of the rights traditionally recognised as easement.
Any cases of expressly created easement, an increase use will be tolerable but excessive use cannot be acceptable. For instance in the case of Jelbert v Davies  a right of way was granted to a farmer over a drive way. He later converted the farm into a caravan park. The use by the caravan owner was accepted but the use of 200 caravan was excessive as it would interfered with the servient owner uses of the land.
Key characteristic of Easement
Easement allows a landowner the right to use the land belonging to another.
There could be a positive action such as the right to use the path over neighbouring land or just a negative action such as the right to light.
Easement is not a right for personal use but attaches to the pieces of the land.
Re Ellenborough Park (1956) defining the characteristic of easement.
There should be a dominant tenement and servient tenement.
Dominant tenement - the land to take / receive the benefit.
Servient tenement - the land to suffer the burden.
The easement should accommodate the dominant tenement.
"Accommodate" means that easement must benefit the land but not for the benefit of the land owner personally such as in Moddy v Steggles (1879) and Hills v Tupper (1863).
The easement should exists for the comfortable and reasonable enjoyment of the dominant tenement such as in Moncrieff v Jamieson and Others (2007) Lord Hope.
In Bailey v Stephen (1862) the two plot of land should be reasonably close to each other.
The servient and dominant tenements must be owed by different persons. You cannot have an easement over your own land but a tenant able to have an easement over the landlord's land.
The capability of the easement to form a subject matter of the grant may include :
-the present of capable grantor and grantee.
Grantor - the person who can grant
Grantee - the person who receive the benefit
The easement must be definite.
The rights of good view is not definite ( Aldred's case) (1610)
The rights of good television's signal reception is also not definite ( Hunter v Canary Wharf ( 1997)
The nature of the rights must fall within the general nature of the rights recognised as traditional as easement ( Dye v Lady James Hay (1852)).
The rights should not depriving the servient owner from the used and enjoyment of his property.
Lord Scott in Moncrieff v Jamieson ( 2007), stated that the main issues is not whether the easement alleged permits the reasonable used of the land by the servient owner, but the easement permits the servient owner possession and control of the land.
Easement may not affect or prevent the landowner use of land but an easement may still be upheld if it limit severely the use of servient land owner property as in Virdi v Chana and another (2008).
Profit a Prende
It is known as a right to take something from the land. Can be created by statute, prescription, expressly or impliedly ( not fall under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows).
Requires a deed.
No deed is necessary for implied easement or prescription issued.
Must be registered if land is registered where the easement is legal.
Extinguishment of easement
Easement can be extinguished via abandoned, released or extinguished.