## Facts

- The case concerned a dispute between Ms. Chaudhary and Mr. Yavuz regarding rights over a staircase located on Mr. Yavuz's property.
- Ms. Chaudhary owned a property that could only be accessed via the disputed staircase.
- The staircase had been used by Ms. Chaudhary and her predecessors for many years without a formal agreement or deed granting an easement.
- Ms. Chaudhary claimed a right to use the staircase as an easement, while Mr. Yavuz argued that her use was by way of a revocable licence.
- The court examined whether the nature and duration of use, and any arrangement between the parties, was sufficient to establish an easement, either expressly or by prescription.

## Issues

1. Whether the claimant’s use of the staircase constituted an easement or was merely a revocable licence.
2. Whether the arrangement met the legal criteria for an easement, including intention to create a proprietary right and accommodation of the dominant tenement.
3. Whether long-standing use of the staircase without a formal deed sufficed to create an easement by prescription or implied grant.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held the use of the staircase was a revocable licence, not an easement.
- It found no clear intention to create a proprietary right, which is required for an easement.
- The arrangement did not meet the criteria established in Re Ellenborough Park, specifically in terms of accommodation of the dominant tenement.
- The claimant’s use of the staircase was permissive and not “as of right,” so no easement by prescription was established.

## Legal Principles

- An easement must satisfy the criteria set out in Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131, including the existence of a dominant and servient tenement, accommodation of the dominant tenement, separation of ownership, and capability of forming the subject matter of a grant.
- Permission-based use constitutes a licence and does not create a proprietary interest.
- Long-standing use cannot give rise to an easement by prescription where the use is with permission.
- Clear intent to grant a proprietary right is necessary to create an easement.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that informal, permissive use of property, absent a clear intention to grant a proprietary right, does not give rise to an easement; the rights in question amounted only to a revocable licence. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of formalized agreements in property rights disputes involving shared access arrangements.


Chaudhary v Yavuz [2012] 2 All ER 418