Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) Practice Exa\

What does the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows imply about easements?

1. They cannot be implied in any sale

2. An easement is implied if necessary for enjoyment

3. An easement is always granted to the seller

4. It only applies to residential properties

The correct answer is: An easement is implied if necessary for enjoyment

The rule in Wheeldon v Burrows establishes that an easement can be implied in certain circumstances where it is necessary for the enjoyment of a property that is being sold or transferred. This principle emphasizes that easements, which are rights to use the land of another for a specific purpose, are not automatically created but may be recognized when they are essential for the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property being conveyed. In the context of this rule, an easement can be considered implied when it has been exercised prior to the sale and is necessary for the current owner's enjoyment of the land. This creates a basis for asserting the right to continue that use even if it was not expressly documented in the title deed. The other choices do not accurately represent the implications of the rule. For example, the idea that easements cannot be implied in any sale is contrary to the concept that they can be implied when necessary. The notion that an easement is always granted to the seller misinterprets the rule's focus on the necessity for enjoyment of the property being sold rather than an automatic right for the seller. Lastly, suggesting that the rule only applies to residential properties limits its application, as it can extend to other types of property as well.