## Facts

- The case concerns the implied grant of easements in English property law.
- It arose where a landowner sold a portion of their land and the conveyance did not expressly address rights associated with the parts retained or sold.
- The fundamental legal question turned on whether a purchaser could claim easements not expressly granted when the land had previously been in common ownership and occupation.
- The core dispute centered on whether a right of light was impliedly granted to a workshop owner after the vendor sold adjacent land and the new owner built a wall that blocked the workshop's light.
- The case concerned the transition of quasi-easements (used by an owner over their own land) into full easements upon conveyance, provided certain conditions were met.

## Issues

1. Whether an easement can be implied in favour of the purchaser when the seller fails to expressly grant one at the time of conveyance.
2. What conditions must be fulfilled for a quasi-easement to become an implied easement upon the sale of part of land.
3. Whether the law should distinguish between the implication of easements by grant (in favour of the purchaser) and by reservation (in favour of the seller).
4. How section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 interacts with, and differs from, the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows regarding implied easements.
5. What limitations and exceptions apply to the implication of easements under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows.

## Decision

- The core rule established is that when a landowner sells part of their land, any continuous and apparent quasi-easements exercised and necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the part conveyed, and enjoyed at the time of the sale, become implied easements for the benefit of the purchaser.
- The law is cautious about implying a reservation of easements in favour of land retained by the seller; such reservations must usually be expressly stated.
- In the present case, the court found that no implied right of light had arisen because the requirement that the right be “continuous and apparent” and “necessary for reasonable enjoyment” was not satisfied.
- The seller could not rely on the rule to reserve an implied right of light, highlighting the distinction between implied grants (in favour of the purchaser) and reservations (in favour of the seller).
- The implication of an easement may be excluded by express agreement or contrary intention stated in the conveyance.
- Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 can, in some cases, also result in the creation of easements on conveyance, sometimes more broadly than the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows.

## Legal Principles

- For an implied easement under Wheeldon v Burrows, the quasi-easement must be: (a) continuous and apparent (i.e., with a permanent and visible sign, observable on reasonable inspection), (b) necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property conveyed, and (c) enjoyed by the vendor at the time of the sale during common ownership and occupation.
- Easements will generally be implied only by grant, not by reservation; sellers must expressly reserve any easement they wish to retain.
- The rule does not apply to compulsory purchases and can be excluded by express agreement.
- Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 may also operate to convert certain benefits enjoyed with the land into easements on conveyance, even without explicit mention, particularly where there has been diversity of occupation, although recent case law suggests a more flexible approach.
- Rights must be of a type capable of being easements; excessively wide or inconsistent rights will not be upheld.

## Conclusion

Wheeldon v Burrows established key criteria for the implication of easements upon the sale of land, focusing on continuous and apparent use necessary for reasonable enjoyment and enjoyed while in common ownership, while highlighting the need for careful drafting in conveyances to avoid unintended grants or reservations of rights.

Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) 12 Ch D 31