Property - Easements

1. Dominant and servient tenement

2. Easement must accomadate dominant tenement

3. Dominant and servient owners must be different persons

4. Right over land does not equal easement UNLESS capable forming subject matter of grant

Establishes closeness

Must benefit LAND (Hill & Tupper: canal case)

'Normal enjoyment'

BUT not 'mere amusement' --- but garden okay?

Require me to do something (except maintain fence) --->
Moncrieff v Jameson

Benefit you w/o acitivity on your part except remove support, block access to water, air, light, etc.
---> Phipps v Pears (NO OTHER NEGATIVE EASEMENTS)

No excessive rights over my land
---> Batchelor v Marlow: NO can park in specific place
----> Virdi v Chana: can do so?
= confusion, maybe reasonable use binding

-Intention to create right in rem

Reserve during sale or express agreement

Re Webb's Lease: probably intended by parties, as a matter of fact

---> if facts trigger special rules
= impute easement due to utility + low grade consent

Transfer of landlocked end, easement created to allow access to land, Easement out of neccesity

I lease you lower floor for restaurant, restaurant needs ventilation duct, easement conferred. WONG V BEAUMONT PROPERTY

Prior usage

I owned AND occupied A and B. I transfer B. Before transfer: quasi-easement, continuous and apparent; neccesary for reasonable enjoyment

Prior usage

Owned both, occupied one

-no continuous and apparent mandate
-license must be easement shaped, e,g, irrevocable (no reservation for original owner)

No rules under Wheeldon v Burrows, but courts do find it if needed

(CORP OF LONDON V RIGGS)

Utility + consent; not neccesity

Using land for 20+ years, etc.

Deed - registed
No deed - no registration
Prop. estoppel

Legal: express/ implied granted; reserved by deed; created by prescription

Equitable: state contract, prop. estoppel

If registered...binding.
If not...disponee knows, used in last year, obvious then binding

But can be overring interest (both legal and equitable(