CASE NOTES
Easing the law onto unchartered terrain: Regency Park Villas Title Ltd and others v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd and others [2018] UKSC 57
Edwin Teong Ying Keat, University of Bristol
INTRODUCTION Gray and Gray posit that the idea of property is the ârelationship which one has with a thingâ1 rather than black letter law. Context is crucial, especially when analysing the law on easements. In this respect, rigid application of the law compels individuals to purchase entire freehold or leasehold estates to enjoy access to land if his right of way is not recognised.2 In Re Ellenborough Park,3 Eversheds MR set out the following 4 requirements which constitute an easement4: (i) presence of dominant and servient tenement (ii) existing as different persons (iii) easement must accommodate the dominant tenement (iv) right claimed must be capable of forming the subject matter of a grant. These 4 requirements were introduced to prevent uncertainty in the law but should be construed flexibly and in context. This means recognising the utility and benefit when new methods of land use surface. In Regency Park Villas Title Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd (hereafter known as âRegencyâ),5 Lord Briggs held that recreational easements can be recognised. This was considering the âservice, utility and benefitâ6 in the context of timeshare apartments. While this may engender allegations of introducing uncertainty, this case note hopes to advocate a
210
1 Kevin Gray and Susan Francis Gray, âThe idea of property in landâ, Land Law: Themes and Perspectives (Oxford University Press 1998, pg 15-51), at p. 15 2 Kevin Gray and Susan Francis Gray, âLand Lawâ (Oxford University Press 7th edition) at p. 234 3 Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131 from hereon known as âEllenborough Parkâ. 4 ibid. at 140. 5 Regency Park Villas Title Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd [2018] 3 W.L.R. 1603 6 ibid. at [53].
more flexible approach bearing in mind the idea of property. This will be achieved by setting out the facts, issues and judgment before proffering an analysis of Regency. 1. FACTS The dominant tenement in question was Broome Park and its surrounding land which had included one Elham House while the servient tenement was the rest of Broome Park.7 In or before 1979, the park was acquired by Gulf Investments which developed a timeshare and leisure complex consisting of 18 timeshare apartments on the upper 2 floors of Broome Park and a communal club house including an 18-hole golf course, swimming pool and garden.8 Amidst multiple transactions, Elham house was transferred to Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd to be held on trust for Regency Villas Owners Club (âRVOCâ).9 The first claimant is the freehold owner of Elham house. The remaining claimants are individual members of the RVOC. The claimants contended that they were entitled to easements over all the sporting and recreational facilities.10 On that basis, the claimants sought an injunction restraining interference with their use of the recreational facilities and damages for interference with their easement.11 On the other hand, the Defendants contended that the claimants had no benefit of easements and sought a quantum-meruit, in order to seek compensation for providing recreational facilities during and after 2012.12 7 Regency at [3]. 8 Regency at [4]. 9 Regency at [7]. 10 Regency at [16]. 11 ibid. 12 Regency at [17].