land not part of the dominant tenement. Access to the additional rooms was merely ancillary to access to the cottage. On the other hand, in [2003] 2 P&CR 58 the UK Das v Linden Mews Court of Appeal took a of what constitutes much more restrictive view permissible ancillary use. The owners of two houses in a London mews, which enjoyed rights of way over the mews, acquired plots at the end of the mews where they to park their cars. The court rejected the argument that parking proposed at the end of the mews was ancillary to enjoyment of the easement. The learned authors in a leading text, say the Gale on Easements, principle seems to be that access to land that is ancillary to the use of the way for the purposes of the grant is permissible; but access to land which is ancillary to the enjoyment of the dominant tenement is not. In [2005] EWHC 1710 (Ch) a right of way benefitted a Wilkins v Lewis core estate but the Court could not see that using the way for the further purpose of gaining access to 800 additional acres of land forming the neighbouring land was merely ancillary to the use of the core estate. These decisions are not easy to reconcile. Ancillary rights circles –turning In , the issue was Berryman & Anor v Robert Sommenschein & Anor whether an easement co joined with a portion of the dominant tenement, permitted turning. It was held that (on the facts of that case) turning was permitted on the co-joined easement.
land not part of the dominant tenement. Access to the additional rooms was merely ancillary to access to the cottage. On the other hand, in Das v Linden Mews [2003] 2 P&CR 58 the UK Court of Appeal took a much more restrictive view of what constitutes permissible ancillary use. The owners of two houses in a London mews, which enjoyed rights of way over the mews, acquired plots at the end of the mews where they proposed to park their cars. The court rejected the argument that parking at the end of the mews was ancillary to enjoyment of the easement. The learned authors in a leading text, Gale on Easements, say the principle seems to be that access to land that is ancillary to the use of the way for the purposes of the grant is permissible; but access to land which is ancillary to the enjoyment of the dominant tenement is not. In Wilkins v Lewis [2005] EWHC 1710 (Ch) a right of way benefitted a core estate but the Court could not see that using the way for the further purpose of gaining access to 800 additional acres of land forming the neighbouring land was merely ancillary to the use of the core estate. These decisions are not easy to reconcile. Ancillary rights –turning circles In Berryman & Anor v Robert Sommenschein & Anor , the issue was whether an easement co joined with a portion of the dominant tenement, permitted turning. It was held that (on the facts of that case) turning was permitted on the co-joined easement.
Easements-Jacobs-17-March-2015.docx