• In the case of Long v Gowlett 1923 2 Ch 177, it was held that there has to be diversity of either occupation or ownership between the dominate and servient lands for a right to pass as an easement according to S.62 LPA 1925.

Facts of the Case

  • L owned a water mill and claimed a right of access across fields for the purpose of repairing the riverbank and cutting down weeds.
  • The previous owners of both the water mill and the fields had done so before.
  • L claimed that upon sale of the water mill, the right passed onto him under s.62 LPA 1925.

Issues in Long v Gowlett 1923 2 Ch 177

  • Can an easement be implied?

Held by High Court

  • No easement implied under S.62 PA 1925

Sargant J

  • Here, it was discussed that where land is held in common ownership and is sold to two purchasers, a right of way will not be implied where there is no obvious visible path unless there was separation of occupation.
  • “The plaintiff, as far as I can see, was forced into bringing the present proceedings by the broad and aggressive claims of right made by the defendant. And I have no reason to doubt that, when these proceedings are at an end, the plaintiff will allow the defendant, not as a matter of strict right, but as one of neighbourly courtesy, sufficient opportunity of clearing away weeds and repairing the bank along the plaintiff’s length of the river; and that, none the less, because the result of so doing would enure to the advantage of the plaintiff as well as of the defendant. I propose to grant a declaration and an injunction as claimed by heads 1 and 2 of the plaintiff’s claim; and I award him 40s. damages for the defendant’s trespass. The defendant must pay the plaintiff’s costs of the action to be taxed. The counterclaim is dismissed with costs” pg. 204.

Exclusive Industry Scoop

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.