xs
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Nickerson v Barraclough [1981] Ch 426

Country:
United Kingdom
  • Plaintiff’s land could only access the public highway via a bridge and through Defendant’s land However Plaintiff’s land was accessible by another route. Defendant kept pulling down the bridge.

  • Plaintiff asked the court to imply an easement right of way.

  • CA denied Plaintiff’s claim on the facts, saying that a right of way could be implied by necessity where the land would otherwise be inaccessible. 

Brightman LJ

The doctrine of way of necessity is not founded upon public policy at all but upon an implication from the circumstances.

A way of necessity is never found to exist except in association with a grant of land.

  • He explicitly states that this mode of creating an easement is based on what is necessary to give effect to the parties’ intentions/expectations, and NOT what is necessary for the property to realise its usefulness. 

Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch