Union Lighterage Co. v London Graving Dock Co. [1902] 2 Ch 557; 71 LJ Ch 791; [1900-3] All ER Rep 234; 87 LT 381, 18 TLR 754
EASEMENT, EASEMENT OF NECESSITY, EASEMENT OF SUPPORT, IMPLIED RESERVATION, CLAIM ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY,
SEVERANCE OF TENEMENTS HELD BY COMMON OWNERS
Facts
A dock and a wharf, divided by a fence, belonged to the same owner in 1860. In the same year, in order to secure the side of the dock, the owner carried several tie-ropes under the ground beneath the fence and the surface of the wharf for a distance of 15.5 feet to the west of the fence. In 1877, the wharf was conveyed to the plaintiffs by the owners, without any reservation of the right of support for the dock. In 1886, the owners conveyed the dock to the defendant’s predecessors in title. In 1900, the plaintiffs discovered the tie-ropes for the first time, whilst making some excavations in the wharf.
Issues
(1) Was the easement of support one of necessity and therefore, could a reservation of it be implied?
(2) Have the defendants acquired an easement of support by length of enjoyment?
Decision/Outcome
The decision was in favour of the plaintiffs – it was held that they are entitled to remove the tie-ropes.
(1) An easement of necessity is one without which a property retained upon severance cannot be used at all, not one which is necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of the property.
(2) When the wharf was conveyed to the plaintiffs, there was no implied reservation of a right to support the dock and the tie-rods did not remain vested in the grantors as part of or appurtenant to the dock.
(3) The easement of support was not one of necessity and thus, a reservation of a right to support could not be implied.
(4) As the enjoyment of the dock was claimed, the owners of the dock did not acquire an easement of support by length of enjoyment.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the Court of Appeal decision in Union Lighterage Co v London Graving Dock Co [1902] 2 Ch 557. The legal principles stated remain good law. The narrow definition of an easement of necessity — that the property must be incapable of any use without the right, rather than merely incapable of reasonable use — continues to be applied in English and Welsh courts and is regularly cited in academic and practitioner texts on the law of easements. The principle that easements will not be impliedly reserved in favour of a grantor except in very limited circumstances (necessity being strictly construed) also remains settled law, reaffirmed in subsequent authorities including Nickerson v Barraclough [1981] Ch 426 and more recently considered in the context of the Law Commission’s work on easements. Readers should note that the Law Commission published a report, Making Land Work: Easements, Covenants and Profits à Prendre (Law Com No 327, 2011), which recommended reforms to the law of implied easements, including the test for easements of necessity. Those recommendations have not been implemented by Parliament as of the date of this note, so the common law position described in this article remains the applicable law in England and Wales.
