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.