Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131

Facts

• The case concerned access rights to Ellenborough Park, with surrounding houses claiming use of the park as an easement.
• The houses adjacent to the park were treated as dominant tenements, benefiting from access, while the park itself functioned as the servient tenement.
• Disputes arose regarding whether the use of the park constituted a valid easement under property law.
• The judgment examined how the claimed right related to recognized categories of easements and whether it satisfied the criteria for such rights.

Issues

1. Whether a right of access to Ellenborough Park satisfied the legal requirements to be classified as an easement.
2. Whether the arrangement involved two separate properties (dominant and servient tenements).
3. Whether the benefit conferred was to the dominant land itself rather than a personal advantage.
4. Whether the two tenements had separate ownership.
5. Whether the claimed right was sufficiently certain, limited in scope, and recognized by law as capable of grant.

Decision

• The court set out four core features required for an easement: (i) there must be a dominant and servient tenement; (ii) the right must accommodate the dominant tenement; (iii) the dominant and servient tenements must be owned by different persons; and (iv) the right must be capable of forming the subject matter of a grant.
• The access to Ellenborough Park was deemed to meet these criteria, thus amounting to a valid easement.
• The case confirmed that recreational use, such as park access which enhances the value and enjoyment of the dominant tenement, could qualify as an easement.
• The court clarified the limitation that easements must not confer rights amounting to exclusive possession or require active duties from the servient owner, except in limited circumstances.

Legal Principles

• To be an easement, a right must involve: (1) a dominant and servient tenement; (2) benefit to the dominant tenement; (3) separate ownership of the two tenements; and (4) a right capable of grant (i.e., defined, lawful, and recognized by law).
• The benefit must relate to the use and value of the dominant land, not simply a personal benefit to its owner.
• Easements cannot exist “in gross”; they must be tied to the land.
• The right claimed must not grant full control over the servient land or impose extensive obligations on the servient owner.
• The law distinguishes easements from other property rights, such as profits à prendre, and places limits on the types of rights that count as easements.

Conclusion

Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131 is a foundational authority in English land law that clarified the four essential prerequisites for an easement. The decision provided a structured test to assess claimed easements and affirmed that certain recreational rights can meet the criteria if they accommodate the dominant tenement, shaping subsequent judicial approaches to similar claims.