In Annetts v Adeleye ([2018] EWCA Civ 555) the English Court of Appeal had to consider whether a dominant owner’s acceptance of an obligation to fence off access from the dominant tenement to the servient tenement amounted to the abandonment of a right of way.
The dominant tenement (‘the strip’) had formerly been part of a larger portion of land (‘Summerhill’) with the same right of way. The owner of Summerhill imposed the covenant on the sale of the strip to the owner of a neighbouring property.
The court also to consider whether the right of access from Summerhill over the strip to the servient tenement would revive if Summerhill and the strip were again to come into common ownership.
Abandonment of an easement
The relevant legal principles are to be found in Gale on Easements which was cited with approval in Dwyer v Westminster CC ([2014] 2 P & CR 7):
‘a. whether a person intends an abandonment is not a subjective question; it is always a question of fact to be ascertained from the surrounding circumstances whether the act amounts to an abandonment or was intended as such;
b. abandonment depends on the intention of the person alleged to be abandoning the right of way as perceived by the reasonable owner of the servient tenement; to establish abandonment of an easement the conduct of the dominant owner must have beensuch as to make it clear that he had at the relevant time a firm intention that neither he nor any successor in title of his should thereafter make use of the easement;
c. abandonment is not to be lightly inferred; owners of property do not normally wish to divest themselves of it unless it is to their advantage to do so, notwithstanding that they may have no present use for it;
d. non-user is not by itself conclusive evidence that a private right is abandoned; the non-user must be considered with and may be explained by the surrounding circumstances.’ (Arden LJ at [8])
The fact that the owner of the dominant tenement had no need for the time being to use the right over the servient tenement would also suggest that the right of way had not been abandoned (Arden LJ at [9] citing Dyer).
The search is for the objective intention of the dominant owner as reasonably perceived by the servient owner (Arden LJ at [10]).
Given the principles mentioned above, the question is whether the hypothetical servient owner would have concluded that the right of way from the strip had been abandoned (Arden LJ at [37]). The issue has to be determined at the date of the transfer ([54]).
The hypothetical servient owner has some knowledge of the law; this person knows that covenants to erect a fence (being positive covenants) do not run with the land and would not bind a later owner of the strip ([48]).
Application to the covenant to fence off access to the servient tenement
Whether building a fence to block access to the right of way is an abandonment has to be considered on a case by case basis in the light of the above principles.
Abandonment ‘is not to be lightly inferred … Even a major obstruction does not necessarily result in abandonment of a right of way’ (Arden LJ at [49]).
It was relevant that the servient owner, who had the most to gain from an abandonment, was not a party to the covenant to build the fence (Arden LJ at [51]).
There was no abandonment.
If Summerhill and the strip came into common ownership would the right to cross the strip to get to the servient tenement revive?
It would (Arden LJ at [56]). The position is similar to that where the dominant and servient tenement come into common ownership (Arden LJ at [58]).
Michael Lower