Chaudhary v Yavuz [2012] 2 All ER 418

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal