Wheeldon v Burrows is a significant English land law decision concerning the implied grant of easements on the severance of land held under common ownership. The case clarified when certain rights that had existed during unified ownership could pass automatically to a purchaser without being expressly mentioned in the conveyance.
Wheeldon v Burrows remains important for understanding how continuous and apparent quasi-easements operate when land is sold in parts, and how the law places limits on implied rights in favour of a purchaser.
Legal Context and Background
Before the events giving rise to this dispute, English land law recognised that easements could arise not only by express grant or prescription but also by implication. One specific situation involved land that was originally owned and used as a single unit and later divided and sold in parts.
Prior to division, certain uses existed across different parts of the land—for example, access, drainage, or light—that did not qualify as easements because the land was in common ownership. These uses are commonly referred to as “quasi-easements”.
The legal question addressed by the courts was whether such quasi-easements could turn into full legal easements automatically when ownership was divided, without any express wording in the transfer.
Facts of Wheeldon v Burrows Case
In Wheeldon v Burrows, Mr Tetley was the owner of both a piece of land and a workshop in Derby. The workshop had windows that overlooked the adjoining land and received light across it. While both plots were in the same ownership, this arrangement caused no legal difficulty because an owner cannot have an easement over their own land.
Mr Tetley later sold the workshop to Mr Burrows and sold the adjoining piece of land separately to Mr Wheeldon. After Mr Wheeldon’s death, ownership of the land passed to his widow, Mrs Wheeldon. Mrs Wheeldon built on her land in such a way that the construction blocked the light entering the workshop through its windows.
Mr Burrows responded by dismantling part of Mrs Wheeldon’s construction, claiming that he had an easement allowing light to pass over her land to his workshop. Mrs Wheeldon then brought an action in trespass, disputing the existence of any right of light in favour of Mr Burrows.
Issue
The key issue in Wheeldon v Burrows was whether the sale of the workshop carried with it an implied grant of an easement for light over the adjoining land. The court had to decide whether a right that had existed during the period of common ownership could automatically pass to the purchaser when the land was sold in separate parts and when no express right had been reserved or granted in the conveyance.
Wheeldon v Burrows Judgement
The Court of Appeal delivered its judgement through Thesiger LJ. In Wheeldon v Burrows, the court held that no easement for light had been impliedly granted to Mr Burrows. Because the seller had not reserved or granted a right of access to light for the workshop windows, no such right passed to the purchaser.
Thesiger LJ explained two governing propositions for cases of this nature. First, when the owner of land grants part of it as it is used and enjoyed at the time of the grant, all continuous and apparent quasi-easements that are necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the part granted, and which were used for that benefit during common ownership, may pass to the grantee.
Secondly, if the grantor intends to reserve any right over the land conveyed, it is the grantor’s responsibility to reserve that right expressly in the grant.
These propositions rest on the established maxim that a grantor must not derogate from the grant. Applying these principles to the facts, the court found that no implied right of light arose. The land was sold in separate parcels, no right of light was expressly mentioned, and the conveyance did not prevent the purchaser of the land from building in a way that obstructed the workshop windows. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Legal Principle Established
The case confirmed the circumstances in which continuous and apparent quasi-easements may be impliedly granted on the transfer of part of land previously held in common ownership. Such rights pass only where they are necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the land conveyed and have been used for its benefit at the time of the grant.
The decision also confirmed that implied grants operate in favour of the grantee, not the grantor, and that any rights intended to be retained by the grantor must be expressly reserved.
Subsequent Development and Legislative Context
Although the principles stated in the case were not significantly altered by later case law in the years that followed, they were further consolidated by section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925. This statutory provision reinforced the concept of implied grants on conveyance.
In practice, however, implied grants under both common law and statute are frequently excluded by express wording in modern conveyancing documents, particularly where land is sold in parts and the seller wishes to retain freedom to develop the remaining land, subject to planning controls.
Significance of the Case
The importance of Wheeldon v Burrows lies in its structured explanation of how implied easements operate when land is divided and sold. The case clarified that not every beneficial use existing before sale will pass automatically to a purchaser, and that the presence or absence of express wording in the conveyance is critical.
It also highlighted the need for careful drafting in property transactions to prevent disputes over implied rights.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Wheeldon v Burrows remains a leading authority in English land law on the implied grant of easements. It established clear principles governing the transition of quasi-easements into legal easements on severance.
It reinforced the rule that rights must be expressly reserved if they are to be retained by the grantor. The case continues to play an essential role in shaping conveyancing practice and judicial reasoning in disputes involving implied easements.