Borman v Griffith [1930]
Share
Borman v Griffith [1930] 1 Ch 493 is a significant case in English property law, particularly regarding the implication of easements under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows.
The case involved a lease agreement between the tenant and the landlord for a lodge situated within a park. While there was existing access to the lodge via a rear track, the tenant sought a right of way over the main driveway, which was essential for accommodating the heavy vehicles involved in the tenant's poultry business.
In the High Court, Maugham J considered whether an easement could be impliedly granted to the tenant alongside the lease under the rule established in Wheeldon v Burrows. He emphasised that if an obvious and made road is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property by the grantee, it must be presumed that the grantor intended to grant a right to use it. This principle reflects the rationale behind the rule in Wheeldon, which allows for the implication of easements necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property.
Maugham J held that an easement was impliedly granted by the defendant to the tenant under the rule in Wheeldon. He highlighted that the grant of easement could be excluded by the terms of the contract, indicating that the intention of the parties and the necessity of the easement were crucial factors in determining its implication.
This case reaffirmed the principle that a secondary right of way, such as access to a main driveway, must provide more than mere convenience; it must offer an additional practical advantage necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property to be implied under the rule in Wheeldon.
The case involved a lease agreement between the tenant and the landlord for a lodge situated within a park. While there was existing access to the lodge via a rear track, the tenant sought a right of way over the main driveway, which was essential for accommodating the heavy vehicles involved in the tenant's poultry business.
In the High Court, Maugham J considered whether an easement could be impliedly granted to the tenant alongside the lease under the rule established in Wheeldon v Burrows. He emphasised that if an obvious and made road is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property by the grantee, it must be presumed that the grantor intended to grant a right to use it. This principle reflects the rationale behind the rule in Wheeldon, which allows for the implication of easements necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property.
Maugham J held that an easement was impliedly granted by the defendant to the tenant under the rule in Wheeldon. He highlighted that the grant of easement could be excluded by the terms of the contract, indicating that the intention of the parties and the necessity of the easement were crucial factors in determining its implication.
This case reaffirmed the principle that a secondary right of way, such as access to a main driveway, must provide more than mere convenience; it must offer an additional practical advantage necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property to be implied under the rule in Wheeldon.
