This Practice Note covers wrongful interference with an easement as a private nuisance, what constitutes an actionable interference, alteration and deviation of rights of way, whether a beneficiary can be estopped from objecting to an interference due to acquiescence, remedies, damages and procedural guidance for bringing and defending a claim for the infringement of an easement. Wrongful interference with an easement is a private nuisance. The existence of the easement must be established for a claim to succeed. For more guidance in respect of private nuisance, see Practice Note: Private nuisance—general principles. In Gosling v Bradbury, the claimants sought a declaration that they were entitled to access to the water supply from a borehole on the defendant’s farm pursuant to a legal easement and they also sought an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with that supply. The claimants' argued that there was an ancillary easement allowing for the passage of electricity from the farm to the pump at the borehole, which had been disconnected by the defendants thereby illegally interfering with the easement. The defendants

This Practice Note explains the very limited circumstances in which an easement can be used for the benefit of subsequently acquired land. For general guidance on the nature of easements, see Practice Note: Easements—nature and characteristics. See also: Easements—overview. Where an easement is expressly granted, the extent of the land benefiting from it (the dominant land) and of the land burdened by it (the servient land) must be clear at the date of grant. The benefit of an easement will not extend to any land subsequently added or tacked on to the dominant land. Where an easement is claimed by prescription or long use, the extent of the dominant and servient land must be clear from the evidence relied on to support the claim. As with expressly granted easements, the benefit of a right acquired by prescription or long use cannot be extended to other land. Whether expressly granted or acquired by prescription, a right of way granted for the benefit of a defined area of land may not be used in substance

There are different ways in which an easement may cease to exist and this Practice Note looks primarily at unity of seisin, also known as unity of ownership. For other ways in which an easement may be extinguished, consider: • abandonment—see Practice Note: Easements lost by abandonment • express agreement—for example, see Precedent: Deed of release of easement • statute—for example, see Practice Note: Section 203 powers—interference with rights for development purposes • the execution of works in compliance with a statutory order which prevent the easement from being capable of being exercised, or • the lawful removal of the structure over which the easement exists See further: General: Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents [1190]. Unity of seisin Unity of ownership Unity of seisin (in modern terms, unity of ownership) is where the ownership of the freehold interest in both the dominant and servient tenements come into the ownership and possession of the same person. This is in line with the principle that it is not possible to have an easement over one’s own land. It is generally accepted

The use and occupation of land often depends on the land in question having the benefit of easements—for example, a right of way or a right of drainage. These rights may have been granted expressly or claimed by prescription or implied into the original transfer of the land. As the ownership or use of land changes over time, it frequently becomes necessary to consider the nature and extent of the easements which have been granted or acquired. A purchaser of land needs to know that the easements benefitting the land will be sufficient for their particular needs. An owner of servient land may feel that a new or increased use of an easement by the dominant tenement amounts to ‘excessive user’. There is no hard and fast rule when it comes to interpreting easements; each one turns on its facts. However, the starting point with an expressly granted easement will always be the deed granting the easement which the court will interpret in its entirety and in its context. Unless clearly directed otherwise, the court

Nature of an easement An easement is an incorporeal right enjoyed by the owner of a legal estate (dominant tenement) over land in the ownership of another person (servient tenement) that binds successors in title. Easements are usually positive, giving the dominant owner the right to enter or use the servient land in some way (eg a right of way). However, they can be negative preventing something being done on the servient land and so giving the dominant owner the right to receive something from the servient land (eg a right to light). Easements can be legal or equitable and they can be created by express or implied grant or by statute or arise by prescription or long user. See: Checklist for the creation and registration of easements. Easements are different from: • natural rights arising by law from the ownership of land (eg a right to continuance of an accustomed flow of water in a natural channel bordering land) • profits à prendre which are the right to take something from the servient land • rights of common

This Practice Note looks at where the responsibility lies for repairing and maintaining land which is subject to easements and who is responsible for the cost of its upkeep particularly where there is no express agreement allocating responsibility for carrying out repairs and/or paying for the costs of repair and maintenance. Is there an obligation to repair? An easement is a right to do something on another’s land or to prevent something being done; it is not an obligation to do something. In the Scottish case of Moncrieff v Jamieson, Lord Scott stated: ‘the grant of a right that required some positive action to be undertaken by the owner of the servient land in order to enable the right to be enjoyed by the grantee, could not be an easement’. In practice, however, easements frequently require some action to be taken; for example, a road may need to be repaired or a drain may need to be cleared. Where the easement has been created by express grant, the original grantor and grantee may have entered

The East Africa International Arbitration Conference (EAIAC) has released its program for both days of the conference, which kicks off on 19 September 2024 and concludes the following day. EAIAC has scheduled several discussions, including 'is AI (already) a gamechanger for legal services in Africa?' and 'the latest and greatest developments in arbitration on the continent'.

HMCTS has notified that it has invoked a full business continuity plan at East London Tribunals due to ongoing cooling system failures across its site, requiring the transfer of all in-person hearings, judiciary and staff to alternative venues. Employment Tribunal hearings have been relocated to Taylor House, London EC1R 4QU. That arrangement will be reviewed on a week-by-week basis.

Law360, London: A Court of Appeal panel on 24 July 2025 granted easyGroup victories in two separate disputes over its family of brands, reviving several trade marks and upholding some of its infringement claims.

IP analysis: Easygroup Ltd (‘easyGroup’) has succeeded in establishing that certain use made by Easy Live (Services) Ltd and its directors (together ‘Easy Live’) of ‘easyLiveAuction.com’ signs took unfair advantage of easyGroup trade marks under section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994). However, this came at a cost, with Easy Live establishing that other ‘easyLiveAuction.com’ signs which it had used did not infringe, and partially revoking four of easyGroup’s trade marks. easyGroup further failed to establish a likelihood of confusion under TMA 1994, s 10(2) and, despite establishing both goodwill and misrepresentation, failed to succeed in its passing off claim. Of interest will be Mr Justice Mann’s observations concerning how to assess infringement where first use falls outside of the limitation period, which contrasts with the position taken in a series of recent cases (paras [118]–[128]), as well as his affirmation of the requirements to prove use of EU (and UK comparable) marks which became vulnerable to revocation for non-use before IP Completion Day/Brexit (paras [41]–[45]). Mann J’s treatment of the limited evidence of use provided by easyGroup in addition to the distinction he made between advertising/promotional services directed towards licensees and wider consumers may further be of interest, while it was notable that the passing off claim failed solely on the basis of an insufficient likelihood of damage. Written by Daniel Berry, partner, and Louisa Blair, associate, at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP.

IP analysis: EasyGroup, the claimant, brought a trade mark infringement action against the use of various EASY LIVE marks by Easy Live, and also applied to invalidate the defendants' registration of EASY LIVE AUCTIONS. The defendants counterclaimed with an action to revoke the claimant's registration of EASYLIFE (stylised) and to invalidate a word mark registration on the basis of the defendants' registration and its goodwill in the EASY LIVE trade mark. The court held that there was no likelihood of confusion between the claimant's Easylife marks and the defendants' Easylive marks. It also rejected the defendants' counterclaim that the entirety of the Easylife logo should be revoked. Following on from the decision that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks, the court also dismissed the claimant's application to invalidate the defendants' registered trade marks for 'EASY LIVE AUCTION' and 'EASYLIVEAUCTION' and the defendants' counterclaim for invalidity of the Easylife word mark. Written by Milena Velikova, trade mark attorney and Helene Whelbourn, legal director at Lee & Thompson LLP.

Law360: An appellate court has dismissed a restaurant owner's attempt to broaden the scope of a business interruption policy lacking any 'nondamage' extensions to include losses sustained during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. In a unanimous decision, a Court of Appeal panel said that Italian restaurant Bellini's policy covered losses caused only by physical damage to the premises.