Introduction
The case of Moody v Steggles (1879) 12 Ch.D 261 outlines the principle that a right to advertise a business operated on land can aid the land itself and pass to future owners or tenants. This principle concerns easements, especially whether a right seeming personal can attach to the land. The judgment set out the conditions for such a right to count as an easement, stressing the link between the right and the dominant tenement’s ordinary use. The court decided that the sign’s benefit directly aided the business on the dominant land, letting it qualify as an easement.
The Facts of Moody v Steggles
The plaintiff, Moody, owned a public house called the Lion Brewery. For over forty years, the brewery’s owners had attached a sign advertising the business to the wall of the defendant’s neighboring property, Steggles. Steggles, aware of the long-standing practice, planned to remove the sign. Moody sought a court order to stop this.
Establishing an Easement: Key Points
The main issue was whether the right to keep the sign satisfied the requirements for an easement. An easement needs separate dominant and servient properties, the right must help the dominant property, and the owners of these properties must be different. The right must also be eligible for legal grant.
Aiding the Dominant Tenement: Business Use
The court examined whether the advertising right assisted the dominant property. Justice Fry J concluded it did. He noted the sign offered more than personal benefit to the owner; it directly aided the business on the premises. The sign was necessary to draw customers, making it relevant to the pub’s normal operation as a commercial site. This link separated the case from scenarios where a right helps an owner regardless of land use.
Distinguishing Personal and Land-Based Rights
Moody v Steggles differentiates rights tied to individuals from those attached to land. The right to keep the sign was connected to the business on the land, not just the current owner. Thus, it applied to the land, helping future brewery owners or tenants. This difference clarifies when a right genuinely aids the dominant property. Comparisons were drawn to Hill v Tupper (1863) 2 Hurl. & C. 121, where a boat-operating right was considered personal, showing the need for a direct link to the land’s ordinary use.
Effect and Legacy of Moody v Steggles
Moody v Steggles greatly shaped property law by explaining how rights connected to business activities can form easements. It established a standard for recognizing that rights aiding land-based trade can pass to successors. This applies to other rights directly helping businesses on specific properties, provided they meet easement conditions. Later cases, like Platt v Crouch [2003] EWCA Civ 1110, upheld this principle in modern settings.
Conclusion
Moody v Steggles stays a key authority for deciding when a business-related right counts as an easement. The case stresses that the right must aid the dominant property by directly supporting its usual commercial use. The ruling confirmed that rights like maintaining a business sign are not personal but attach to the land, helping future owners. This principle, maintained in later rulings, continues to guide property law, illustrating the link between commercial operations and land-based rights. The judgment clarifies the distinction between personal rights and those needed for land use, aiding easement analysis.
