## Facts

- Mr. Borman leased a gas station and adjacent land from Mr. Griffith.
- The written lease did not include a provision for use of a driveway connecting the property to the main road.
- The driveway was the only practical means for vehicles to access the gas station.
- Mr. Griffith sought to prevent Mr. Borman from using the driveway, leading to the legal dispute.

## Issues

1. Whether an implied right of way could be recognized for Mr. Borman to use the driveway, even though it was not expressly set out in the lease.
2. Whether such an implied right depends on the necessity for the property's intended commercial use.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that Mr. Borman had an implied right to use the driveway.
- The court determined that access was necessary for operation of the gas station for its intended commercial purpose.
- The presence of an implied right of way depends on what is reasonably required for the specific use anticipated at the commencement of the lease, not on absolute necessity.
- The judgment distinguished between implied rights in leases and those arising under Wheeldon v Burrows, focusing here on the intended function rather than prior quasi-easement use.

## Legal Principles

- An implied right of way may arise in a lease where such access is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the demised premises, given the property’s intended use.
- Recognition of implied easements in leases stems from the parties’ probable intentions and the requirement of access to fulfill the property’s agreed function.
- The test is necessity for the planned use, not simply absolute necessity.
- The approach in Borman v Griffith is distinct from Wheeldon v Burrows, where prior quasi-easements are central.

## Conclusion

Borman v Griffith established that courts may imply a right of way into a lease where access is necessary for the property’s intended function, reflecting the reasonable expectations and intentions of the parties at the outset of the lease.

Borman v Griffith [1930] 1 Ch 493