Borman v Griffith [1930]

Facts

• A 7 year lease over part of some land was granted to the claimant, which no expressly reserved right of access
• The remainder of the land was let to the defendant
• The claimant regularly used a right of way over the defendant’s land, which the defendant subsequently obstructed after obtaining possession

Issue

• Did the claimant have an easement over the defendant’s land?

Decision

• Yes

Reasoning

• The easement was necessary for the the claimant’s business to function, and was apparent in its use
• An easement was implied under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows (1879)