The case of Regency Villas Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd [2018] UKSC 57 is a landmark decision in English land law that clarifies the scope of recreational easements. The Supreme Court examined whether a right to use leisure and sporting facilities within a country estate could qualify as an easement benefiting neighbouring land. It revisited and expanded upon the principles established in Re Ellenborough Park [1956], determining that recreational rights may satisfy the accommodation requirement if the dominant land’s purpose itself is recreational.
This case has since become a reference point in land law, particularly for understanding when recreational or sporting rights can constitute easements and how such rights can practically benefit the dominant tenement.
Legal Principle
At the heart of Regency Villas Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd [2018] UKSC 57 lies the question of when a recreational right can be recognised as an easement. The judgement confirmed that recreational rights are capable of accommodating the dominant land if that land serves a recreational or leisure purpose.
The Supreme Court reiterated the four essential conditions for a valid easement:
- There must be both a dominant and a servient tenement, showing a separation of ownership between the benefiting and burdened land.
- The right must accommodate the dominant tenement, meaning it must provide a real and practical benefit to the land itself, not merely to its owner.
- The right must be capable of forming the subject matter of a grant, that is, capable of being owned and legally enforced.
- The right must be sufficiently definite and certain, so that its existence and scope can be clearly identified.
Importantly, the Supreme Court held that where the dominant land is intended for recreation—such as holiday or timeshare developments—recreational rights can indeed accommodate that land. This represents a modern acknowledgment that leisure and sporting activities are integral to contemporary life and can therefore be recognised within the framework of property law.
Facts of Regency Villas Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd Case
The dispute in Regency Villas Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd [2018] UKSC 57 arose from the ownership and use of facilities at Broome Park, a large country estate near Canterbury. The estate originally comprised the Mansion House, Elham House, and surrounding lands.
In 1967, Elham House and its adjoining land were sold off separately, becoming what would later be known as the dominant tenement in the dispute. The remaining parts of Broome Park, including the Mansion House and various leisure areas, were retained by the seller and became the servient tenement.
In 1979, Gulf Investments Ltd acquired Broome Park with the intention of developing a timeshare and leisure complex. Purchasers of the timeshare units formed the Broome Park Owners Club (BPOC) and were given the right to freely use the communal and leisure facilities through lease agreements.
A year later, in 1980, Elham House was re-acquired by the developers, and planning permission was secured for constructing additional timeshare apartments known as Regency Villas. Gulf Investments then transferred Elham House to an associated company, granting rights for members of the Regency Villas Owners Club (RVOC) to use the leisure and sporting facilities at Broome Park.
Over the years, disputes emerged as facilities were reduced and the new owners of Broome Park, including Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd, challenged the RVOC members’ rights to continue using the leisure complex without paying charges. The owners of Elham House and the RVOC members sought a declaration that their rights amounted to an easement entitling them to free use of all the sporting and recreational facilities within Broome Park.
The disagreement eventually reached the Supreme Court, which had to decide whether the right to use those facilities constituted an easement enforceable in law.
Issues Before the Court
The central issue in Regency Villas Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd [2018] UKSC 57 was whether the claimants possessed an easement to use the sporting and leisure facilities of the Broome Park estate. Specifically, the Court had to determine:
- Whether the right to use the leisure facilities accommodated the dominant land (Elham House and the Regency Villas apartments).
- Whether the right was capable of being the subject matter of a grant under established easement principles.
In essence, the Court had to decide whether purely recreational rights—such as the right to use a golf course, swimming pool, or tennis courts—could meet the traditional requirements of an easement.
Regency Villas Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd Judgement
The Supreme Court held in favour of the claimants, confirming that the right to use the leisure and sporting facilities at Broome Park amounted to an easement.
The Court reasoned that although the right was primarily recreational, it did accommodate the dominant tenement because the timeshare apartments were intended for holiday and leisure purposes. Thus, the recreational rights were of “service, utility and benefit” to the timeshare properties.
Furthermore, the rights were capable of forming the subject matter of a grant. They were defined with sufficient certainty, did not deprive the servient owner of possession or control, and did not require the servient owner to spend money or maintain the facilities.
The Court found no legal barrier preventing such recreational rights from constituting easements, provided they satisfied the traditional four conditions established in Re Ellenborough Park.
Key Passages from the Regency Villas Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd Judgement
Lord Briggs, delivering the lead judgement, emphasised the significance of recognising recreational easements in modern society. At paragraph [53], he stated:
“In the present case the dominant tenement was to be used for the development, not of homes, still less townhouses, but of timeshare apartments… it is plain beyond a doubt… that the grant of rights to use an immediately adjacent leisure development with all its recreational and sporting facilities is of service, utility and benefit to the timeshare apartments as such, just as… the grant of rights over a communal garden is of service, utility and benefit to a townhouse.”
He continued at paragraph [74]:
“My analysis thus far demonstrates… that the Facilities Grant exhibited all the well-settled essential characteristics of an easement or easements, viewing each of the four characteristics… separately.”
Finally, at paragraph [81], Lord Briggs summarised the principle that has become the enduring legacy of this case:
“This court should affirm… that the grant of purely recreational (including sporting) rights over land which genuinely accommodate adjacent land may be the subject matter of an easement… Recreational and sporting activity… is so clearly a beneficial part of modern life that the common law should support structures which promote and encourage it.”
Reasoning in Regency Villas Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd
The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Regency Villas Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd [2018] UKSC 57 was grounded in the idea that property law must evolve to reflect social realities. The Court acknowledged that leisure and recreation are not “mere amusement” but activities with genuine practical benefit and utility.
By affirming that a recreational easement could exist where the dominant land itself is used for leisure or holidays, the Court adapted traditional easement principles to contemporary conditions. The decision also reinforced that recreational rights can satisfy the accommodation test when linked directly to the purpose and enjoyment of the dominant property.
The Court was careful to note, however, that each case must be assessed on its facts. The rights must remain sufficiently defined, not overburden the servient owner, and not impose obligations of expenditure or maintenance.
Thus, the decision did not create a new category of easement but rather confirmed that existing principles can encompass modern recreational contexts.
Conclusion
Regency Villas Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd [2018] UKSC 57 reaffirmed and extended the principles of Re Ellenborough Park by holding that purely recreational rights may qualify as easements when they accommodate the dominant land’s recreational purpose. The decision reflects the evolution of property law to recognise leisure and sporting use as genuine benefits to land.
Through careful reasoning, the Supreme Court balanced traditional requirements with modern realities, ensuring that the law of easements remains practical, adaptable, and relevant.