Easements Implied in a Grant — Away with ‘Continuous and Apparent’

Greg Taylor

Monash University - Faculty of Law; University of Marburg


Monash University Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2012

In Wheeldon v. Burrows, the law on implied grants of easements was pronounced to be that a grant would be recognised if the easement was 'continuous and apparent' or reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the land, and used at the time of the grant for the benefit of the land granted. Ever since, there has been a controversy about whether the word highlighted actually means "and." But there has been no in-depth consideration of the purpose which the 'continuous and apparent' requirement is supposed to serve. This article concludes that it serves no purpose at all, is often ignored by the courts, is not justified for historical or any other reasons, is not binding as part of the ratio decidendi of Wheeldon nor part of the broader contribution of that case to the development of the common law, and accordingly should be deleted from the discussion.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 14

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: September 11, 2013  

Suggested Citation

Taylor, Greg, Easements Implied in a Grant — Away with ‘Continuous and Apparent’ (2012). Monash University Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2012. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2323245

Contact Information

Greg Taylor (Contact Author)
Monash University - Faculty of Law ( email )
Wellington Road
Clayton, Victoria 3800
+61 3 9905 3331 (Phone)
+61 3 9905 5305 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://www.law.monash.edu.au/staff/gtaylor.html
University of Marburg ( email )
Universitätsstrasse 24
Marburg, D-35032
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 284
Downloads: 32

© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 1.188 seconds