## Facts

- The dispute involved Rance (the plaintiff), who claimed an easement of water supply from Elvin’s (the defendant’s) property.
- Water was supplied to Rance’s property via a pipe running from Elvin’s land.
- Central to the case was whether Rance had a right to receive a maintained water supply from Elvin, or simply a right to extract water independently.
- The court examined the history of both properties and management of the water system to determine the nature and origin of the alleged right.

## Issues

1. Whether the right claimed by Rance was a right to receive a maintained supply of water or merely a right to take water from the source independently.
2. Whether such a right required an express grant or could be established by prescription.
3. What obligations, if any, were imposed upon Elvin as the servient tenement owner regarding the maintenance and provision of the water supply.

## Decision

- The court distinguished between an easement to take water (requiring active extraction by the dominant owner) and an easement to receive a supply of water (requiring ongoing provision by the servient owner).
- It found no evidence that Rance had been granted a right to take water; rather, the arrangement constituted an easement to receive a supply, obliging Elvin to maintain the flow.
- The court determined the historical arrangement and conveyance documents supported an easement based on receipt of a supply rather than extraction.
- The servient owner’s duties included maintaining the infrastructure to ensure the consistent delivery of water at a reasonable rate and quality.

## Legal Principles

- Easements of water supply must be established by clear express grant or long use (prescription).
- The nature of an easement—whether to receive a supply or to take water independently—determines the obligations and responsibilities of the servient owner.
- Proper documentation and clear definition of the easement are necessary to avoid disputes and unexpected burdens on property owners.

## Conclusion

Rance v Elvin (1985) 50 P&CR 9 established that an easement to receive a water supply creates a duty for the servient tenement owner to provide and maintain the supply, highlighting the importance of explicit grants or prescription and clear documentation when dealing with water rights and easements.