Additional requirements
Some rights which would have passed these tests are: a right to light (aforementioned), right of way (Borman v Griffith), right to drainage (Atwood v Bovis Homes Ltd), right to air (Wong v Beaumont Property Trust Ltd), right to storage (Wright v Macadam), parking (London and Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd). However, parking can be tantamount to possession and might be more of a right, rather than an easement.
Next: the easement must be justified in being granted. This is easiest if the right being granted is similar to a right already in existence, ie if a public house wanted to put up a sign they could point to Steggles v Moody. If a pre-existing case can be pointed to, then the following must also be complied with:
- Must not exclude the owner – this can be the case with parking and storage claims, where the owner cannot use the space at all.
- It must be a right and not involve the co-operation of the servient tenement owner.
- There can be no new negative easements (Phipps v Pears)
- The easement must not involve expenditure by the servient owner (Regis Property Company Ltd v Redman).
Apart from these ‘hoops’ an easement might be capable of being granted if all of the above is satisfied..
 Next: Easements Part III
 Previous: Easements Part I
|
