Introduction
The case of Borman v Griffith [1930] 1 Ch 493 establishes major principles about implied rights of way. This decision clarifies when a right of way not explicitly stated in a lease might still apply. The Court of Appeal determined such rights arise when necessary for reasonable use of the rented property, based on its intended purpose at the start of the lease. This principle relies on the probable intentions of both parties and whether the right of way was practically required for the agreed function. The Borman v Griffith ruling remains a fundamental property law case, shaping how courts address easements in lease agreements.
The Facts of Borman v Griffith
Mr. Borman leased a gas station from Mr. Griffith. The lease included the station and adjacent land but did not specify use of a driveway connecting to the main road. This driveway provided the only practical vehicle entry to the gas station. When Mr. Griffith attempted to prevent Mr. Borman from using the driveway, the dispute reached court.
The Rule of Necessity
The Court of Appeal held Mr. Borman had an implied right to use the driveway. They concluded the gas station’s commercial function depended on vehicle access. Without the driveway, the property could not operate as intended. This established a core principle: when a lease serves a specific purpose requiring access, courts will recognize a right of way even if absent from the written lease.
Intended Use and Implied Rights
The court emphasized the property’s planned function when the lease began. The implied right depends on what was reasonably required for that specific use, not absolute necessity. Here, vehicle access was necessary for running a gas station. Had the property been leased for a purpose not needing vehicles, the right might not have applied.
Comparing Borman v Griffith to Wheeldon v Burrows
The judgment distinguishes Borman v Griffith from Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) 12 Ch D 31. Wheeldon concerns implied rights when land is divided, requiring prior use as a quasi-easement. Borman v Griffith addressed leases without prior quasi-easements. The court clarified that lease-related implied rights stem from the parties’ probable intentions about property use, not the visible prior use required under Wheeldon v Burrows.
The Impact of Borman v Griffith
Borman v Griffith has significantly shaped property law, becoming a primary reference for implied rights disputes. It established a test for recognizing rights in leases. Later cases like Wong v Beaumont Property Trust Ltd [1965] 1 QB 173 have expanded these principles, citing Borman v Griffith as influential. The case highlights why a property’s intended function matters, ensuring necessary access rights are either expressly granted or implied under established law.
Conclusion
Borman v Griffith clarifies how courts recognize rights of way in leases. It emphasizes assessing a property’s intended function and whether access is reasonably required for that function. The principles from this case remain relevant in property law, aiding resolution of access disputes. This decision illustrates challenges in property agreements and the need for precise lease terms. The framework from Borman v Griffith and related cases like Wong v Beaumont Property Trust Ltd provides a structured approach to such issues. Applying these principles helps landlords and tenants avoid conflicts over access rights, ensuring properties function as intended.
