Pwllbach Colliery Co v Woodman 
- The claimant butcher made a nuisance claim against Pwllbach Colliery for dust thrown up by their mining operation due to the recent addition of screening equipment on the defendant’s land
- The butcher had taken a lease on his land ‘subject to all rights and easements belonging to any adjoining and neighbouring property’
- Did Pwllback Colliery have an implied easement which could negate a nuisance claim?
- As the screening equipment was not necessary for the mining to take place, there could be no easement of necessity
- There was also no easement implied by way of common intention, as there was no mutual intent for the screening to take place
- Easements of common intention will only be found where they are necessary for a definite and particular purpose
Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 26th April 2015
© 2019 Webstroke Law - Terms