Hill v Tupper (1863) 2 H & C 121

Facts

• Hill leased a portion of the Basingstoke Canal bank from the canal company, together with the purported exclusive right to operate pleasure boats for hire on that section.
• Tupper, who owned a neighboring inn, began offering boat rentals to his patrons, allegedly infringing Hill's exclusive right.
• Hill claimed that his agreement with the canal company constituted a profit à prendre, enforceable against Tupper.
• Tupper argued that Hill's right was a personal privilege, not a recognized property right enforceable against third parties.
• The court was required to determine whether Hill’s claimed exclusive boating right was truly connected to the use and enjoyment of the leased land, or simply a commercial advantage.

Issues

1. Whether the exclusive right to operate pleasure boats on the canal constituted a valid easement or profit à prendre benefiting the land, or was merely a personal license or business privilege.
2. Whether such a right, granted to Hill, could be enforceable against third parties like Tupper as a proprietary land interest.

Decision

• The Court of Exchequer ruled against Hill, finding that the right granted was not a valid easement or profit à prendre.
• The court determined that the exclusive right to hire out boats was a personal business advantage, not a right benefiting the land itself.
• The judges held that English law does not allow the creation of new types of property rights at the will of landowners if those rights do not directly relate to the use and enjoyment of land.
• The right in question was held to be a personal license, not enforceable as a property right against third parties.

Legal Principles

• For a right to qualify as an easement or profit à prendre, it must benefit the land itself and be intrinsically connected to its use and enjoyment.
• Personal licenses and privileges that benefit only a business, rather than the land, do not constitute proprietary interests in land.
• English land law requires clear, established categories for property rights and does not permit the creation of indefinite or arbitrary new interests by simple contractual agreement.
• The decision reinforced that the stability and predictability of property rights depend on a logical and direct relationship between the claimed right and the enjoyment of land.

Conclusion

Hill v Tupper (1863) clarified that only rights directly benefiting land can be recognized as easements or profits à prendre, while business privileges, such as exclusive boating rights, are personal licenses, not enforceable as property rights against third parties. This principle maintains certainty and limits in the creation of proprietary interests in English land law.