Kent v Kavanagh, [2007] Ch 1

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Ms. Redwood and Ms. Eagan each own separate portions of farmland that once belonged to a single proprietor. A drainage channel runs beneath both properties and had been used by the original owner for many years. After purchasing her plot, Ms. Eagan discovered that Ms. Redwood constructed a structure impeding the channel. Ms. Eagan claims she has an implied easement entitling her to continued drainage across Ms. Redwood's land. Ms. Redwood contends that any drainage use during shared ownership cannot create a legally enforceable easement post-division.


Which of the following statements best explains whether Ms. Eagan can successfully claim an implied easement for drainage?

Introduction

The legal concept of an easement grants specific rights over another person's land. These rights often involve using the land for a defined purpose, such as access or drainage. Establishing an easement must follow specific legal criteria. One criterion, important in some contexts, concerns how shared ownership affects easement creation. Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1 examines this criterion regarding implied easements. This case clarifies when shared ownership may remove the requirement for an easement and gives clear instructions for property law practitioners.

The Facts of Kent v Kavanagh

Mr. Kent and Mr. Kavanagh owned adjacent properties, previously part of a single plot. Before division, a drainage system served both sections. The dispute arose when Mr. Kavanagh began construction on his portion, which Mr. Kent claimed interfered with drainage affecting his property. Mr. Kent argued for an implied easement.

The Issue of Implied Grant or Reservation

The court assessed whether an easement was created by implied grant to Mr. Kent or kept by the former shared owner. A key factor for implied grant or reservation is whether the easement is required for ordinary use of the property asserting the right. The judgment reviewed ‘quasi-easements’, rights used during shared ownership that could become easements after division.

The Relevance of Shared Ownership: Removing Need

The primary legal issue in Kent v Kavanagh was how shared ownership affects the requirement for an easement. The court stated that while land remains under shared ownership, an easement cannot apply. Rights over what later becomes the servient land form part of the owner’s general entitlements. Thus, the requirement for an easement—a primary condition for implied grant or reservation—cannot arise during shared ownership.

Wheeldon v Burrows and Continuous and Apparent Easements

The case cited Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) 12 Ch D 31, a key case on implied easements. Wheeldon v Burrows sets out criteria for implied grants, including continuous and apparent use. Kent v Kavanagh confirmed that even if a right was continuous and apparent during shared ownership, this alone does not create an easement post-division. The necessity condition remains decisive.

Applying the Rules to the Drainage System

Applying these principles to the drainage system, the court held the claimed easement could not be implied. As the properties were previously under shared ownership, no easement could have existed then. The drainage arrangement was part of the owner’s general entitlements. The requirement for an easement could not be shown based on pre-division use.

Practical Implications and Subsequent Cases

Kent v Kavanagh gives clear instructions for property law practitioners handling implied easements. It stresses verifying ownership history and specific details of the claimed right. The ruling confirms that prior use alone, even if continuous and apparent, cannot support an implied easement if the land was once shared. Later cases, such as Wood v Waddington [2014] EWCA Civ 272, have followed this approach, maintaining the focus on necessity in shared ownership disputes.

Beyond Kent v Kavanagh: Additional Factors in Implied Easements

While shared ownership is important, it is not the only factor in implied easement cases. Courts also consider elements like the purpose of the claimed right, property types, and transfer conditions. Each case depends on its facts and requires careful legal review.

Conclusion

Kent v Kavanagh clarifies property law by explaining how shared ownership affects implied easements. The ruling establishes that necessity is a basic condition for implied grant or reservation, which cannot exist during shared ownership. The case emphasizes verifying ownership history when assessing easement claims. Its principles, linked to earlier cases like Wheeldon v Burrows, give clear instructions for legal practitioners managing property rights. Reviewing shared ownership remains essential in evaluating easement claims.

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.

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 December 2024. 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.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

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