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)
RELATED CASE  Mortgage Corporation v Shaire [2001]

Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 26th April 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy