## Facts

- The dispute involved claimants asserting rights to use access tracks over land, invoking section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
- The claimants argued their access to the tracks had been established through regular use before the land transfer.
- The defendant contended that prior use of the tracks was too inconsistent to meet the statutory requirement.
- The High Court considered historical evidence regarding frequency, duration, and purposes of the access, including specific examples and broader patterns of use.
- Uses in question included both farming and personal activities related to the land.

## Issues

1. Whether the claimants’ pre-transfer use of the access tracks constituted "regular use" as required by section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
2. Whether varying types, purposes, and frequencies of access could amount to a sufficient consistent pattern to establish an implied easement.
3. How periods of non-use or gaps affected the assessment of regularity for the purpose of section 62.
4. Whether the claimed rights qualified as easements rather than mere licenses.

## Decision

- The court determined that section 62 does not require constant use of the claimed right, but demands a consistent pattern connected to the property's ordinary use.
- Occasional or irregular access, or rare use for special occasions, would not be sufficient to create an easement.
- Varied uses, even if individually infrequent, may together demonstrate a consistent pattern if connected to the typical use of the property.
- Short, explained gaps in use do not necessarily destroy regularity; however, long discontinuities or changed circumstances may indicate abandonment.
- The existence of an implied easement under section 62 depends not just on frequency but on the overall consistency, purpose, and historical context of the use.

## Legal Principles

- Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 converts quasi-easements into legal easements on transfer if regular use is established.
- "Regular use" means a consistent, purposeful use tied to the ordinary enjoyment of the property, not mere frequency.
- Combined varied uses may collectively establish the necessary regularity.
- Evidence such as witness accounts and contemporaneous records are critical in proving historic use.
- Short interruptions with legitimate explanation do not disqualify regular use, but abandonment or substantial change in circumstances will.
- Distinction remains between easements and licenses, reaffirming earlier case law.

## Conclusion

The judgment in Wood v Waddington clarified that, for an easement to be implied under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the focus is on the consistency and purpose of use, rather than the strict frequency. This provides clearer guidance for property practitioners and emphasizes the importance of precise historical evidence when substantiating such claims.


Wood v Waddington [2014] EWHC 1358 (Ch)