## Facts

- The case centered on whether a right to use a communal park as a pleasure ground for adjoining residential houses could constitute a valid easement.
- The right claimed involved the use of benches, pathways, and general recreational enjoyment of the park by the owners of nearby residential properties.
- Disputes arose over whether this right was a mere personal benefit or a property right attached to the land.
- The court examined previous interpretations of easements and considered the relationship between the dominant (benefiting) and servient (burdened) tenements.

## Issues

1. Whether the claimed right to use the park satisfied the legal requirements for an easement in English law.
2. Whether such a right was merely a personal advantage to individuals or genuinely benefited the dominant tenement.
3. Whether the right was sufficiently certain, limited in nature, and capable of forming the subject matter of a grant.
4. Whether the owners of dominant and servient tenements were sufficiently distinct to allow the creation of an easement.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the right to use the park could constitute a valid easement, provided certain conditions were met.
- The court set out four fundamental requirements that must be satisfied for a right to qualify as an easement: existence of dominant and servient tenements; accommodation of the dominant tenement; diversity of ownership; and capability of forming the subject matter of a grant.
- It was held that the park’s use directly benefited the residential purpose of the dominant tenement, rather than merely offering a personal advantage.
- The court found the right sufficiently certain and not so extensive as to amount to possession or occupation of the servient land.
- The subsequent Supreme Court decision in Regency Villas Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd [2018] UKSC 57 confirmed and extended some of these principles, holding that recreational rights can, in principle, amount to valid easements if the core requirements are fulfilled.

## Legal Principles

- For a right to be a valid easement, there must be (1) dominant and servient tenements; (2) the right must accommodate the dominant tenement; (3) the dominant and servient tenement owners must be different persons; (4) the right must be capable of forming the subject matter of a grant.
- The “accommodation” requirement mandates that the right must provide a genuine benefit to the dominant land, not merely a personal benefit to the owner.
- Easements must not be too vague, must not confer exclusive possession, and should not impose positive obligations on the servient owner.
- Recreational rights can constitute easements if they help fulfill the utility or enjoyment of the land, as established and clarified in subsequent case law.
- All four requirements must be considered collectively in deciding the existence of an easement.

## Conclusion

Re Ellenborough Park provides the definitive structure for the recognition of easements in English law, requiring a rigorous assessment of each claimed right against four essential criteria. These principles ensure that only rights that genuinely benefit land and are precisely defined are recognized, with later judgments such as Regency Villas confirming the flexible but structured approach to recreational and other modern easements.

Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131 (CA)