Wong v Beaumont Property Trust Ltd
A tenant who was required by the lease to use cellars as a restaurant, which was impossible without a ventilation duct through the landlord's premises, had an implied easement to install one.
Facts
The landlord let cellars to a tenant, who covenanted to use them as a popular restaurant, to comply with health regulations and to eliminate smells. Neither party realised that this could not lawfully be done without installing a ventilation duct through the landlord's premises above. Mr Wong, an assignee of the lease, ran a Chinese restaurant there, and the health authorities required a duct to be installed. The landlord's successor refused permission.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Wong had an implied easement to install the duct. Lord Denning MR said that, where the parties intended the premises to be used for a particular purpose, and this could not be done without an easement, the law implies the easement as a matter of necessity to give effect to the common intention of the parties. The parties had intended that the cellars would be used as a restaurant, which could not lawfully be done without the duct.
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
- Hill v Tupper (1863) 2 H & C 121
- Mills v Silver [1991] Ch 271
- Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42, [2007] 1 WLR 2620
- Nickerson v Barraclough [1981] Ch 426
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.
