Goldberg v Edwards [1950] Ch 247
Facts
A homeowner agreed to a let of an annexe at the back of her home to tenants for two years from January 1947. Access to the annexe was permitted to the tenants through the house however there was also access through waste land at the back. The lease was executed on 10th July 1947. After, the homeowner let the house to another tenant who then barred the access through the house to the annexe. The original tenants claimed an injunction against the second tenant.
Legal Issue
Did section 62 transmit the access privilege enjoyed when the formal lease was executed, and what limits applied to the persons and hours covered by that right?
Held
The Court of Appeal recognised a limited right under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The relevant question was what privilege was enjoyed with the premises when the formal lease was executed, not simply when occupation first began. The right established was confined to the lessees’ own passage during reasonable business hours; it did not automatically extend to everyone associated with them. Evershed MR preferred a declaration and did not consider an injunction necessary on the circumstances described. The decision therefore illustrates both the operation of section 62 and the importance of preserving the limits of the pre-existing privilege rather than implying a broader convenient route.
⭐ Legal Principle
Section 62 can carry a privilege enjoyed with land at the date of conveyance, subject to the instrument and relevant conditions. The right recognised is measured by the established privilege; it need not extend to additional users, purposes or hours.
Significance
Goldberg examines both timing and scope under section 62. The date of the formal grant mattered because occupation and use preceded execution of the lease. It also warns against inflating a limited permission into an unrestricted access right for anyone associated with the premises. The declaratory remedy reflected the right actually established. Students should identify who enjoyed the privilege, when it was enjoyed and its practical limits before determining what passed with the conveyance.
Common exam questions about this case
Which date mattered for the section 62 enquiry?
The date of the conveyance or formal lease was material, rather than simply the earlier start of occupation. The court examined the privilege then enjoyed with the premises. Timing matters because arrangements can change between taking possession and execution of the instrument carrying the rights.
Did the right cover servants and customers automatically?
No. The court identified a narrower privilege belonging to the lessees personally and exercisable within reasonable business hours. An implied or statutory right must be defined from its basis. Convenience alone does not justify extending it to every person connected with the dominant premises.
Why distinguish a declaration from an injunction?
A declaration identifies the parties’ legal rights, while an injunction compels or restrains conduct. The quoted appellate reasoning considered a declaration sufficient. The difference matters because recognising an easement does not automatically mean the court grants every coercive remedy requested by its holder.