Phipps v Pears [1965] 1 QB 76

Facts

  • The case involved two adjacent houses, one designated as the dominant property and the other as the servient property.
  • The dominant property relied on the servient property for protection from the weather.
  • When the servient property was demolished, the newly exposed wall of the dominant property was damaged by weather.
  • The owner of the dominant property claimed that an easement for protection from weather existed over the servient property.

Issues

  1. Whether a new negative easement for protection from the weather could be recognized by law.
  2. Whether courts should expand the categories of recognized negative easements beyond the established types.
  3. What the impact would be on property rights and land development if such negative easements were recognized.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal rejected the claim for a negative easement of protection from weather.
  • Lord Denning MR, delivering the main judgment, emphasized courts' historical reluctance to recognize new negative easements.
  • The court affirmed that only specific negative easements—rights to light, air, support, and water flow—are recognized.
  • Expanding negative easements would impose undue limitations on servient landowners and hinder future development and land use.

Legal Principles

  • Negative easements are strictly limited to rights of light, air, support, and water flow in defined channels.
  • The creation of new negative easements is prohibited to prevent excessive constraints on property rights and to encourage land development.
  • Positive easements, allowing an affirmative act on another's land, are more readily recognized due to their clarity and limited burden on the servient owner.
  • Courts endorse flexibility in land use, reflecting changing societal and community needs.
  • Alternatives such as restrictive covenants and statutory planning controls provide mechanisms for landowners to secure protections without creating new negative easements.

Conclusion

Phipps v Pears established that courts will not recognize new negative easements beyond established categories, thereby protecting landowners’ ability to develop their property and ensuring the balance between individual rights and societal needs. This principle continues to guide property law and the recognition of easements.

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.
No resources available.

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 May 2025. 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.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

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