ABIBLO LAW - EASEMENT (9)
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.
Leave a Reply.
The issues regarding the law of property.