Facts
- The plaintiff, Moody, owned the Lion Brewery public house.
- For over forty years, successive owners of the brewery attached a sign advertising the business to a wall belonging to the defendant, Steggles.
- Steggles, despite being aware of the long-standing presence of the sign, intended to remove it.
- Moody sought a court order to restrain Steggles from removing the sign.
Issues
- Whether the right to display a business sign on neighbouring land satisfied the requirements for being an easement.
- Whether the right benefited the dominant tenement itself, rather than being merely a personal right of the present owner.
- Whether such a right could pass to future owners or tenants of the dominant property.
Decision
- The court held that the right to keep the sign on the defendant’s property satisfied the requirements for an easement.
- It was found that the sign directly benefitted the dominant property, as it was necessary for the usual operation of the business on those premises.
- The easement was not merely personal; it was attached to the dominant land and thus would pass to successors in title.
Legal Principles
- An easement must benefit the dominant tenement and be connected to its ordinary use, not just serve the specific owner.
- Rights aiding a business operated on the land can form valid easements if sufficiently connected to the land’s use.
- The distinction between personal rights and land-based easements is determined by the right’s relationship to the dominant property’s use, as compared with authority such as Hill v Tupper.
- Rights meeting the conditions for easements are capable of passing to future owners or tenants of the dominant property.
Conclusion
The case of Moody v Steggles affirmed that rights directly assisting the ordinary business of land—such as signage for a public house—may constitute easements, provided they benefit the land itself rather than just the individual owner, and thus can be enjoyed by future proprietors.