Hill v Tupper
An exclusive right to put pleasure boats on a canal was a personal right for the benefit of a business, not an easement.
Facts
The owners of a canal leased land on the bank of the canal to Mr Hill, and granted him the exclusive right to put pleasure boats on the canal. Mr Tupper, the landlord of an inn on the canal bank, also put boats on the canal for hire. Mr Hill sued Mr Tupper, claiming that he was interfering with his easement.
Legal principle
The court held that Mr Hill's right was not an easement, so he could not sue Mr Tupper, although he might have a contractual claim against the canal owners. Pollock CB said that a new species of incorporeal hereditament cannot be created at the will and pleasure of the owner of property. The right to put boats on the canal did not accommodate Mr Hill's land as land, but was a commercial monopoly that benefited his business. It was therefore a licence, not an easement.
Related cases on easements
- Batchelor v Marlow [2001] EWCA Civ 1051, [2003] 1 WLR 764
- Copeland v Greenhalf [1952] Ch 488
- Dalton v Angus & Co (1881) 6 App Cas 740
- Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131
- Mills v Silver [1991] Ch 271
- Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42, [2007] 1 WLR 2620
- Nickerson v Barraclough [1981] Ch 426
- Phipps v Pears [1965] 1 QB 76
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
