Nickerson v Barraclough [1981]


  • Land was conveyed and left landlocked
  • The owner claimed that an easement of necessity had been granted over a bridge, which was the only means of access


  • Had an easement of necessity been granted?


  • Yes


  • An old covenant must be interpreted in its circumstances, not in light of public policy, allowing the easement of necessity to have been impliedly granted
  • Intentions of parties will override public policy where easements of necessity are concerned
  • Public policy may be used to frustrate intentions though (as opposed to helping to interpret them)
RELATED CASE  Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge [2001]

Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 26th April 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy