Easements: the right must accommodate the dominant land (Re Ellenborough Park)

In Re Ellenborough Park [1955] EWCA Civ 4 the Court of Appeal adopted four characteristics of an easement: there must be a dominant and a servient tenement; the easement must accommodate the dominant tenement; the dominant and servient owners must be different persons; and the right must be capable of forming the subject-matter of a grant. On accommodation, the right must be connected with the normal enjoyment of the dominant land, not merely make its owner richer. The Court explained Hill v Tupper, where an exclusive right to let out boats on a canal failed as an easement because it was an independent business monopoly: the land was merely a convenient incident to the right. A boat-hire monopoly on Victor's lake is the same: it does not serve the café land as land. Rights of way, drainage, access paths and light are recognised types of right that serve the dominant land.

Why A is wrong: A right of way to reach the dominant land plainly accommodates it and is a well-recognised easement.

Why C is wrong: Rights to run pipes and drainage for the dominant land are well-recognised easements.

Why D is wrong: A defined path giving access to the dominant land serves its normal use and is capable of being an easement.

Why E is wrong: A right to light for the windows of a building on the dominant land is a long-recognised easement that serves the land.