Alfred F Beckett Ltd v Lyons [1967] Ch 449, CA
Facts
The case involved a claim made by the plaintiff that as an inhabitant of the County Palatine of Durham, he had the right to take coal from the shore of the sea which was within the bounds of the county. The claim fell within the law of easements and the extent of public rights, with the plaintiff’s claim amounting to an argument that residents of the County Palatine of Durham had an easement over the shore which included the right to collecting things from the shore.
Issue
The issues in the case included what amounts to an easement and whether if there is no easement in the current case a limited public right for the residents of the County Palatine of Durham could be said to exist.
Decision/Outcome
The court held first that there could be no easement in this case as there was no dominant tenement and this conflicts with the rules laid on it Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131. It was held that:
“… an essential element of any easement that it is annexed to land and that no person can possess an easement otherwise than in respect of and in amplification of his enjoyment of some estate or interest in a piece of land.” (Winn L.J.)
Further, it was held that there could be no public right for a limited number of locals to have access to the shore to the exclusion of others – if a right was vested in the public it would have to be in the public at large and not a local section of it.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Alfred F Beckett Ltd v Lyons [1967] Ch 449 is a Court of Appeal authority that continues to be cited in English land law for the proposition that an easement must be annexed to a dominant tenement, consistent with the requirements confirmed in Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131. Both authorities remain good law. The article’s further point — that a public right cannot vest in a geographically or locally limited class of the public rather than the public at large — also remains an accurate statement of the legal position. No subsequent statute or appellate decision has materially altered these principles. Students should note that the law of easements more broadly has been the subject of Law Commission consideration (Law Com No 327, 2011), but the fundamental requirements described in this article were not abrogated by that report and no legislative reform followed.
