Walby & Anor v Walby & Anor

Walby & Anor v Walby & Anor

The court held that the circumstances did not justify the implication of a reserved easement of drainage in favour of the retained land, as the land could still be used without such an easement, the facts did not support mutual easements of drainage, and there was no clear common intention for definite use requiring...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew David Scott Walby; Claimant: Richard Scott Walby; Defendant: Malcolm Seamus Scott Walby; Defendant: Laura Christina Scott Walby
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim for implied reservation of drainage easement dismissed; mutual rights of support implied.
Legal Topics
Implied Easements, Easement of Drainage, Easement of Support, Land Transfer, Mutual Easements, Necessity, Intended Use
Property Law Implied Easements Easement of Drainage Easement of Support Land Transfer Mutual Easements Necessity Intended Use

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew David Scott Walby

Claimant

Richard Scott Walby

Claimant

Malcolm Seamus Scott Walby

Defendant

Laura Christina Scott Walby

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1989 transfer impliedly reserved an easement of drainage in favour of the retained land
  2. 2 Whether the 1989 transfer impliedly reserved or granted mutual easements of support for buildings

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the circumstances did not justify the implication of a reserved easement of drainage in favour of the retained land, as the land could still be used without such an easement, the facts did not support mutual easements of drainage, and there was no clear common intention for definite use requiring such reservation. However, mutual rights of support for buildings were implied as they were of obvious benefit to both parcels.

Court Disposition

Claim for implied reservation of drainage easement dismissed; mutual rights of support implied.

Orders

  • No implied reservation of drainage easement in favour of retained land
  • Implied grant and reservation of mutual rights of support for buildings