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.).
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate as a statement of the legal principles established in London & Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 31 (CA). The requirement that an easement must have a sufficiently certain dominant tenement, and the policy against encumbering land with burdens of uncertain extent, continue to represent good law and are regularly cited in land law texts and subsequent decisions.
One citation error should be noted: the article attributes the citation [1993] 4 All ER 157 both to this case and to Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold. This appears to be a drafting error. Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold is correctly reported at [1989] Ch 1 (CA); it does not share the citation given. Readers should consult the correct reports. The substantive legal point drawn from Ashburn Anstalt — regarding certainty of dominant and servient tenements — is not itself affected by this citation error, but the reference as printed is inaccurate. No significant statutory changes or later appellate decisions have materially altered the principles described.
