Nickerson v Barraclough [1981] Ch 426

Key point

  • Leases can be impliedly granted by necessity

Facts

  • C bought a field which was landlocked save for a lane belonging to D
  • C rebuilt a bridge built by the previous owner which D had pulled down
  • D pulled down the bridge against
  • C claimed she had an easement by virtue of conveyance under s62 or alternatively implication by necessity

Brightman LJ

  • An easement of necessity is not founded upon public policy but upon an implication from the circumstances
  • Necessity only exists in association with a grant of land
  • Public policy cannot play any part in the construction of an instrument, it cannot help the cannot to ascertain what the intention was
  • it was plain that the plaintiff’s land was not landlocked when the 1906 conveyance was made, the law relating to ways of necessity was inapplicable