McAdams Homes Ltd. v Robinson & Anor

McAdams Homes Ltd. v Robinson & Anor

The redevelopment of the dominant land from a bakery to two residential houses constituted a radical change in character, and the resulting increase in drainage flow represented a substantial increase in the burden on the servient land. Therefore, the easement of drainage could not be used for the benefit of the two houses, and the respondents were justified in obstructing the pipe.

Parties
Appellant: McAdams Homes Limited; Respondents: Colin and Ashley Robinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Easements, Implied Easements, Drainage Rights, Change of Use, Burden on Servient Tenement
Property Law Easements Implied Easements Drainage Rights Change of Use Burden on Servient Tenement

Case Brief

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McAdams Homes Limited

Appellant

Colin and Ashley Robinson

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied easement of drainage granted in 1982 for a bakery could continue to be enjoyed after redevelopment of the dominant land for two residential houses
  2. 2 Whether the redevelopment represented a radical change in character and a substantial increase in burden on the servient land

Ratio Decidendi

The redevelopment of the dominant land from a bakery to two residential houses constituted a radical change in character, and the resulting increase in drainage flow represented a substantial increase in the burden on the servient land. Therefore, the easement of drainage could not be used for the benefit of the two houses, and the respondents were justified in obstructing the pipe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal, such costs to be the subject of detailed assessment if not agreed.