Definition of user: the exercise of a right to the enjoyment of property
An easement must accommodate the dominant tenement
Download 50.55 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Personal Advantages
| An easement must accommodate the dominant tenement
This requirement means that the right claimed must be sufficiently connected with the enjoyment of the dominant tenement and must be for its benefit.4 The easement must not merely confer some personal benefit on the grantee, but must serve to make the dominant tenement ‘a better and more convenient property’.5 In deciding whether an alleged easement benefits the dominant tenement, regard must be had to the purpose for which the dominant tenement is used e.g. where dominant tenement is a dwelling house, a right to use a garden on adjoining property,6 or to cross the adjoining land to reach a beach (Hart v Pierce), will accommodate the tenement, since it enhances its use and enjoyment. Propinquity Normally, the dominant and servient lands will be adjacent to one another, but it is not essential that it should be so, provided that they are sufficiently close so that the dominant land receives a practical benefit from the right. On the other hand, if the two tenements are miles apart, clearly there can be no easement in favour of one against the other. Personal Advantages A right will not accommodate the dominant tenement if it is granted solely for the personal benefit of the grantee, and not for the benefit of the land occupied by him. The leading case is Hill v Tupper. A Canal company leased land adjoining the Canal to Hill, granting him the sole and exclusive right to put pleasure boats on the canal. Tupper disregarded this privilege by putting his own personal boats on the canal. Hill sought to restrain Tupper, claiming that Tupper was interfering with his easement to put pleasure boats on the canal. Held, the right granted to Hill was not an easement, but only a licence, since it was not acquired in order to benefit Hill’s land as such, but merely so that he could further an independent business enterprise. Had the situation been different, Hill would have had an easement of way and he could have obtained an injunction and restrained Tupper from interfering with the easement. The Dominant and servient tenement must not be both owned and occupied by the same person. Since the essence of an easement is that it is a right in alieno solo (over the land of another), it is a basic rule that a person cannot have an easement over his own land, rather he is simply exercising his rights of ownership over the land itself. Download 50.55 Kb. Share with your friends:
|