A way of necessity is a right of way that the law implies either: (i) in favour of a grantee, over the land of a grantor, if no other way exists by which the grantee can reach the land sold to him; or (ii) over the the grantee’s land, if the land retained by the grantor is landlocked. The extent and nature of the right of way will depend upon the circumstances.
The recent High Court decision in Sweet v Sommer [2004] EWHC 1504 (Ch); [2004] PLSCS 161 confirms that:
* the fact that it may be possible to demolish a physical obstruction will not prevent premises from being landlocked for the purposes of claiming the benefit of an easement of necessity
* easements of necessity are not necessarily restricted to pedestrian rights of way: in some cases, it will be obvious, from the nature of the property and the circumstances surrounding the grant, that a vehicular way was treated as necessary, and that it will then be open to the court to conclude that, without the easement, the property would not be useable in the ordinary sense of the word.
Allyson Colby is a professional support lawyer at Wragge & Co LLP.
Related item:
A way of necessity is a right of way that the law implies either: (i) in favour of a grantee, over the land of a grantor, if no other way exists by which the grantee can reach the land sold to him; or (ii) over the the grantee’s land, if the land retained by the grantor is landlocked. The extent and nature of the right of way will depend upon the circumstances.
The recent High Court decision in Sweet v Sommer [2004] EWHC 1504 (Ch); [2004] PLSCS 161 confirms that:
* the fact that it may be possible to demolish a physical obstruction will not prevent premises from being landlocked for the purposes of claiming the benefit of an easement of necessity
* easements of necessity are not necessarily restricted to pedestrian rights of way: in some cases, it will be obvious, from the nature of the property and the circumstances surrounding the grant, that a vehicular way was treated as necessary, and that it will then be open to the court to conclude that, without the easement, the property would not be useable in the ordinary sense of the word.
Allyson Colby is a professional support lawyer at Wragge & Co LLP.
Related item: Sweet victory in Osbaston neighbours access dispute
