Wong v Beaumont Property Trust Ltd [1965] 1 QB 673
Property law – Easement – Implied term – Easement of Necessity Implied
Facts:
Wong, the tenant of the property had covenanted the property into a restaurant. Three cellars were let to control and eliminate smells and odours caused by the restaurant so they did not cause annoyance to the landlord. Beaumont had complained about the smells of the restaurant and an inspection determined that ducts should be installed as part of a proper ventilation system. A duct was required to be fitted to the outside wall of the landlord’s property. The landlord refused to grant access to Wong to install the vent.
Issues:
Whether there was an implied requirement for the landlord to grant access to Wong for the purposes of hygiene and health and safety.
Held:
The appeal by the landlord was dismissed. At the time of the lease being granted and afterwards, there was always a requirement that a vent would need to be installed so that the restaurant could legally carry out their business. The Court applied the case of Pwllback Colliery Co Ltd v Woodman, holding that an easement can only be implied where the purpose of the lease cannot be carried out without it. The landlord had consented to the use of the premise as a restaurant and therefore, even though there was no term in the contract or easement for such an installation, Wong had established an easement of necessity. Wong was entitled to gain access to the property for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and repairing a ventilation system for use in connection with the restaurant.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Wong v Beaumont Property Trust Ltd [1965] 1 QB 673 is still good law and is regularly cited in English property law for the principle that an easement may be implied where it is necessary to give effect to the common intention of the parties at the time of the grant — specifically, where the grantee cannot use the land for the purpose contemplated by the parties without the easement. The summary correctly references Pwllbach Colliery Co Ltd v Woodman [1915] AC 634 (note: the article spells the case name slightly differently, but this does not affect the legal substance). Readers should note that the law on implied easements has been further developed and clarified, most significantly by the Supreme Court in Regency Villas Title Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd [2018] UKSC 57 and by the Law Commission’s recommendations on easements (Law Com No 327, 2011), though neither development undermines the specific principle in Wong. The article’s characterisation of the easement as one of "necessity" is a slight oversimplification: the Court of Appeal in Wong relied on the doctrine of implied easements from common intention rather than strict easements of necessity, and these are distinct categories — a point reinforced by subsequent case law. Students should bear this distinction in mind when applying the case.
