Nickerson v Barraclough, [1981] Ch 426

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Trisha inherited a small plot of land that was entirely surrounded by farmland. She discovered that her land lacked a direct entrance from any public road. She approached the neighboring farmers for permission to build a driveway across their fields, but they refused without substantial payment. Trisha argued that her situation was one of absolute necessity, claiming she had no viable alternative to access her property. However, it was later revealed that there was an old footpath leading to a minor public trail, though it required a walk of several miles and was not accessible by car.


Which of the following is the single best answer regarding the approach the courts are most likely to take in determining if Trisha has a valid claim of necessity?

Introduction

The doctrine of necessity in property law allows a limited exception to the rule that a person cannot interfere with another's land without permission. Nickerson v Barraclough [1981] Ch 426 examines this doctrine, showing the careful method courts use when reviewing claims of necessity. The case stresses that absolute need, not ease or personal benefit, must be proven for the defense to succeed. Key conditions, such as immediate danger and no alternatives, shape this principle. This decision explains how the necessity defense works and its boundaries.

The Facts of Nickerson v Barraclough

The disagreement centered on access to a property without a direct road connection. The plaintiff, Mrs. Nickerson, owned land reachable only through a right of way over the defendant’s (Mr. Barraclough’s) land. This access was blocked. Mrs. Nickerson claimed she had a right of way by necessity, arguing her property could not otherwise be used.

The Court’s Strict View of Necessity

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mrs. Nickerson’s claim. Lord Justice Brightman’s judgment outlined the strict standards for proving a right of way by necessity. He stated necessity must be absolute, with no other practical options. The convenience of using the defendant’s land was not enough. The court concluded Mrs. Nickerson could reach her property through other methods, even if less direct, so absolute necessity was not proven.

How Necessity Differs from Other Legal Ideas

The Nickerson ruling separates necessity from ideas like implied grants. Implied grants depend on the parties’ assumed intentions when land was first divided. Necessity, however, applies regardless of intent, acting as an exception to trespass laws. This difference shows how strictly necessity is used. Wong v Beaumont Property Trust Ltd [1965] 1 QB 173 offers a contrasting example where necessity worked, demonstrating the specific facts needed.

Rejection of the Implied Grant Claim

Mrs. Nickerson also pursued a right of way through an implied grant. She argued that when the land was split, a right of way should have been added for the landlocked section. The Court rejected this. Referring to cases like Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) 12 Ch D 31, the court noted implied grants require proof of shared prior ownership and existing access before division. This was absent in Nickerson, restricting claims to access over another’s land.

Impact and Later Cases

Nickerson v Barraclough remains relevant in property law. It confirms necessity applies only in rare situations. Later rulings, such as Manjang v Drammeh (1990) 61 P & CR 194, follow this strict method, reflecting Nickerson’s role in shaping necessity. The decision makes clear that lacking direct access alone does not create a right of way by necessity.

Conclusion

Nickerson v Barraclough defines the doctrine of necessity in property law. It demands proof of unavoidable need, not just convenience. The case confirms that interfering with another’s land requires clear legal grounds, reserving necessity for rare instances. By separating necessity from implied grants, the ruling clarifies access rights. This judgment stays significant in property disputes, as seen in cases like Manjang v Drammeh, where courts uphold strict criteria for necessity 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.

Related Posts

Explore more resources to support your job and test preparation

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