Facts
- The dispute concerned whether access to a coal store, long used by the claimant Goldberg over Edwards' adjoining land, constituted an easement.
- Goldberg purchased a house that had, under a prior informal arrangement, used a path to access a coal store situated on land now owned by Edwards.
- The informal access originated as a licence granted by a previous owner before the respective properties were separately sold.
- The court was required to determine if this longstanding, visible, informal use could give rise to a permanent easement following the sale of Goldberg’s property.
Issues
- Whether a prior licence or informal permission for access could give rise to a legal easement upon transfer of the property.
- Whether regular, visible, and practical use of a path between properties demonstrated an intention to create an easement.
- Whether the need for access must amount to absolute necessity, or if practical enjoyment sufficed.
Decision
- The Court of Appeal held that the prior informal licence, coupled with long-established, visible use of the coal store access, was sufficient to create an easement upon transfer.
- The right of access was deemed necessary for the normal functioning of the property, although not absolutely indispensable.
- The court found that the access arrangement was intended by the parties to continue and should be considered as benefiting the property itself, not the individual owner.
- The presence and continuous use of an obvious path supported the implication that an easement was intended to run with the land.
Legal Principles
- An easement may be implied where there has been continuous and visible prior use by licence or informal arrangement, provided it is necessary for reasonable enjoyment of the property.
- Practical necessity is judged according to ordinary use and reasonable expectations of property operation, not strict necessity.
- The intention of the parties at the time of transfer, as evidenced by the nature and obviousness of the use, is critical to implying an easement.
- The existence of visible, ongoing use signals rights benefiting the dominant property and may justify implication of easements upon conveyance.
Conclusion
Goldberg v Edwards confirms that continuous, visible prior use based on informal permission may give rise to an easement if necessary for reasonable enjoyment and if the circumstances indicate this was intended to attach to the land at transfer. The case underlines the court's willingness to formalise essential informal arrangements as easements when justified by property function and parties' intentions.
