Actionable interference with easements

Journal of Property Investment & Finance

ISSN: 1463-578X

Article publication date: 1 June 2001

171

Citation

Dowden, M. (2001), "Actionable interference with easements", Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol. 19 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpif.2001.11219cab.002

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2001, MCB UP Limited


Actionable interference with easements

Landlord and tenant update

Actionable interference with easements

Where a landlord has granted an easement to a tenant any attempt to restrict the scope of that easement might amount to an actionable interference. The test of an actionable interference is not whether what the grantee is left with is reasonable but whether his insistence on being able to continue to use the whole of what he contracted for is reasonable. It is not open to the landlord to deprive the tenant of his preferred modus operandi and then argue that someone else would prefer to do things differently, unless the tenant's preference was unreasonable or perverse.

In B&Q PLC v. Liverpool and Lancashire Properties [2000] EGCS 101 the landlord had granted to B&Q rights to access and to use the service yard to the rear of its units on the landlord's estate. The landlord proposed to construct an extension to the rear of one of those units, the effect of which would be to reduce the turning circle available to B&Q's delivery vehicles. The service yard would not be rendered unusable, merely less convenient in that it would be a more difficult manoeuvre to get the delivery vehicles in and out.

An injunction was granted to prevent the landlord from constructing the extension. Blackburne J was not persuaded by the landlord's argument that the reduced turning circle would still comply with the recommendations of the Freight Transport Association. If the tenant had contracted for the "relative luxury" of an ample right, he was not to be deprived of that right merely because it was a relative luxury and the reduced right would be all that was reasonably required. In the absence of an express reservation of the right to do so, the landlord could not deprive the tenant of any part of the contracted benefit.

Related articles