Long v Gowlett [1923] 2 Ch 177
Law of Property – Easement – Right of Way – Estoppel through Common Owner
Facts:
Long owned a watermill and land which was on both sides of a river. Gowlett owned land on both sides of the river a little further up from Long. Long brought action against Gowlett for obstructing his access to parts of his land along the river bank. Long’s purpose of access was to repair the bank and cut weeds. He claimed to have a prescriptive right to an easement to pass along both banks of the river for these purposes.
Issues:
To what extent should an estoppel created by a former action be allowed or disallowed? Whether there was an implied easement.
Held:
The claim was dismissed, holding that Gowlett’s failure in the action amounted to an estoppel to prevent him from setting up subsequent proceedings brought by the owner’s successor in title for the same purpose. An estoppel, both in the circumstances and generally, was held to operate in respect of the whole right claimed and not just for the particular relief unsuccessfully sought. An implied easement could not be assumed. Section 6(2) of the Conveyancing Act 1881 (the Act) only applied when there had been a severance of a reciprocal enjoyment of the right of ownership and occupation of land by the occupiers. There could be no implied easement in this case. Broomfield v Williamswas distinguished on the facts as it involved an easement of light, the grantor was not permitted to deter from his grant by building on the retained land and thus, sufficient reasons to support the decision.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case note accurately states the decision in Long v Gowlett [1923] 2 Ch 177. The principles discussed remain part of English land law. However, readers should note two important points of context.
First, the article refers to section 6(2) of the Conveyancing Act 1881. That Act has been replaced in England and Wales by section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which is the provision now routinely cited and applied in this context. The 1881 Act is no longer in force in England and Wales. The reasoning in Long v Gowlett regarding the requirement for diversity of occupation before section 62 (formerly section 6) can operate to pass rights on a conveyance remains influential, though it should be noted that the correctness of the strict diversity-of-occupation requirement has been questioned in subsequent case law, most notably in Wood v Waddington [2015] EWCA Civ 538, where the Court of Appeal confirmed that section 62 can in some circumstances operate without prior diversity of occupation where a quasi-easement has been continuously and apparently exercised. Students should therefore treat the rule in Long v Gowlett as an important but not wholly definitive statement of the law on implied easements under section 62.
Second, the law on implied easements more broadly has been considered in subsequent cases including Peckham v Ellison (2000) and Churston Golf Club v Haddock [2019] EWCA Civ 544, and students should consult up-to-date land law texts for a full account of the current position. The estoppel principle discussed in the case remains a valid general statement of the law.
