• Order
  • Offers
  • Support
    • Due to unforeseen circumstances, our phone line will be unavailable from 5pm to 9pm GMT on Thursday, 28th March. Please be assured that orders will continue to be processed as usual during this period. For any queries, you can still contact us through your customer portal, where our team will be ready to assist you.

      March 28, 2024

  • Sign In

Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

London and Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke

343 words (1 pages) Case Summary

16th Jul 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

London & Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd [1993] 4 All ER 157

Conditions for easements, acquiring of new rights under an easement

Facts

The Leicestershire Coop owned land in and around one of their stores in Leicestershire to London & Blenheim Estates; the sale included the right to park cars on the remaining adjacent land which the Coop still owned. Part of the agreement stated that if London & Blenheim Estates wanted to purchase more land, they were to contact Coop before they make the purchase, so that they are able to get similar parking rights for their new land. At some point, The Coop sold its remaining land to Ladbroke. After that sale went through, London & Blenheim Estates purchased more land and wished to obtain parking rights for it.

Issue

The issue in the case was whether London & Blenheim Estates were able to obtain the extra parking rights they sought for the new land they had purchased.

Decision/Outcome

The court held that London & Blenheim Estates could not claim for new parking rights for the new land they had purchased. This was because the agreement had not properly identified the dominant tenement.  Following Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1993] 4 All ER 157 certainty on the point of the dominant and servient tenement are of key importance to the establishment of an easement. Therefore lack of such certainty is destructive to a claim of an easement.

“‘an essential part of the interest to be granted was left uncertain. If one asks why the law should require that there should be a dominant tenement before there can be a grant, or a contract for a grant, of an easement sufficient to create an interest binding successors in title to the servient land, the answer would appear to lie in the policy against encumbering land with burdens of uncertain extent.” (Peter Gibson  L.J.).

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles