Mullis & Peake LLP Solicitors
Open menu
Call us on 01708 784000
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • youtube
  • Our Firm
    • About Us
      • Our Accreditations
    • Our History
    • Our Values
      • Our Client Charter
      • Our Client Survey
    • Our Testimonials
      • Commercial Team
      • Dispute Resolution Team
      • Family Team
      • Private Client Team
      • Residential Property Team
    • Work For Us
  • Our People
    • Company and commercial Team
    • Dispute Resolution Team
    • Family Team
    • Private Client Team
    • Residential Property Team
    • Business Support Team
  • Our Services
    • Services For Business
      • Company & Commercial
      • Commercial Disputes
      • Commercial Property
      • Employment Advice
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Industry Expertise
        • Construction
        • Healthcare
        • Industry
        • Leisure & Hospitality
    • Services For Individuals
      • Contested Wills & Financial Provision
      • Court of Protection
      • Employment Advice
      • Family & Divorce Law
      • Family Mediation
        • Mediation Referral Form - Individuals
        • Mediation Referral Form - Solicitors
      • Lease Extensions & Enfranchisement Claims
      • Legal Disputes
      • Personal Injury
        • Personal Injury Claim Form
      • Residential Property
        • Sales Estimate Form
        • Sale/Purchase Estimate Form
        • Purchase Estimate Form
      • Wills & Power of Attorney
        • Will Quotation Form
      • Trusts & Probate
  • News & Events
    • Our News
    • Legal News
    • Our Events & Seminars
  • Contact Us
    • Find Us
      • Romford Office
      • Shenfield Office
    • Stay Informed
Open
Filter
04 August 2017

Acquisition of Prescriptive Easements

  • Category:
    • Residential Property
    • Commercial Property
  •  
  • Share:
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linkedin
04 August 2017

Acquisition of Prescriptive Easements

Welford v Graham [2017] UKUT 297 (TCC)

Easements, the right of use over the property of another, generally relate to rights of way whether the right be for access or for services or otherwise.

 Most easements are express easements and are contained within a deed entered into by the owners of the two parcels of land affected. The terms of the easement and the rights and reservations of the respective parties are clear.

However, easements may also be implied (for example where pipes lay under neighboring property and services run through those pipes) or they can be prescriptive (as of right), through long use.

A prescriptive easement is one where the use must be as “of right” and not as a result of force, secrecy or permission and for a minimum period of 20 years.

A prescriptive easement may be established by long use in one of three ways:

  1. Common Law;

  2. Under the doctrine of lost modern grant; or

  3. By statute – the Prescription Act 1832.

A recent appeal case dealt with the evidence needed to be able to acquire an easement by prescription. The case involved an application by the Welfords (as claimant) to Land Registry to register a claimed right of way to a warehouse on their land by prescription against the title of the land over which the right of way was made, owned by the Grahams. The Grahams objected to the registration.

In Welford the application was made on the basis of the type of prescription known as ‘lost modern grant’. It could not be made under the Prescription Act 1932 as for that Act to apply the use has to continue up until the time that action is taken to claim an easement. For the doctrine of  lost modern grant to apply, any 20 years continuous use will suffice, provided that it is used ‘as of right’ i.e. openly, without force and without permission.

The burden of proof lays on the claimant and it is often difficult to prove as there is rarely documentary evidence and land changes ownership meaning that documents are lost or people that have knowledge move or can be lost. Indeed, in this instance the Welfords were reliant upon their predecessor’s use of the land.

However, provided the use has been for the requisite period of time and in the requisite manner, there is a rebuttable presumption that the easement has been enjoyed without permission.

JW-Thumbnail

Joanne Wood

View Profile

Expert Commentary

Joanne Wood, Head of Mullis & Peake LLP’s Commercial Property department, said:

“Although the Welfords were unable to provide any evidence to assist their argument, the Grahams were unable to produce any evidence to rebut the presumption that the easement had been enjoyed without permission and accordingly, the Welfords were deemed to have discharged the burden of showing relevant use.

The Upper Tribunal then had to decide the extent of the right of way established. It appeared that the right was a right of way to load and unload from the warehouse for the purpose of the single business run at the workshop rather than for all purposes. However, the Upper Tribunal determined that the historic use should not be limited in the register in this way and confirmed that it may be registered as a vehicular right of way. The reasons for the use were not to affect the character or extent of the use.”

« BACK

« BACK

Categories

  • Awards & Innovation
  • Charity & Fundraising
  • Movers & Shakers
  • Trusts & Probate
  • Wills & Power of Attorney
  • Commercial Property
  • Residential Property
  • Family Mediation
  • Family & Divorce Law
  • Other

News Archive

  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • Older
HYPN-Business-Card---LARGE---low-res
HYPN Update
It is with great regret that we announce that Havering ...
Read more
Mullis & Peake LLP Solicitors @Mullis_PeakeLLP@Mullis_PeakeLLP
Our Romford OfficeRomford Office
8 - 10 Eastern RoadRomford, Essex, RM1 3PJ

T:
01708 784000
DX:
138126 Romford 4
E:
office@mplaw.co.uk
Our Shenfield OfficeShenfield Office
194 Hutton Road, Shenfield, Essex, CM15 8NR

T: 01277 245015

DX: 32907 Shenfield

  • Team_of_the_Year
  • image description
  • image description
  • Acceditation_Marque_ISO_9001_Colour[2]

© Mullis & Peake LLP 2015 - all rights reserved

Website by Itineris

  • Accessibility
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal & Privacy
  • Terms of Business
  • Regulatory
  • Cookie Policy