Borman v Griffith 
- 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
- Did the claimant have an easement over the defendant’s land?
- 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)
Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 26th April 2015