Next, it must be shown that the right is connected with the enjoyment of the dominant tenement in some way.

Generally, the term formerly used was 'dominant tenement'.

The question is whether or not the value derived from the dominant tenement is enhanced by the servitude.

The benefit of an equitable easement passes with the transfer of the dominant tenement.

See 'dominant tenement' above.

The praedial servitude must benefit the dominant tenement itself, not just the pleasure or caprice of whosoever happens to be the landowner at a particular time.

Personal and praedial servitudes are created through agreement between the owner of the dominant tenement and the owner of the servient tenement.

Peter Gibson LJ held that L&B could not claim a car parking right for additional land, because the alleged dominant tenement was not adequately identified.

The benefit of legal easements pass automatically on the transfer of the dominant tenement or part of the dominant tenement.

Whether section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 can operate to turn an equitable easement into a legal easement upon conveyance of the dominant tenement is unclear.

The reason why there must be a dominant tenement before there can be a grant is because certainty is of prime importance, as said in Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold.

It is required of a praedial servitude that it benefit the owner of the dominant tenement in his capacity as owner of the land (rather than merely in his personal capacity).

Although the topic has not arisen in the courts since at least 1925, it is difficult to show that as easement for life accommodated the dominant tenement, since it is inherently personal in nature.

The party gaining the benefit of the easement is the dominant estate (or dominant tenement), while the party granting the burden is the servient estate (or servient tenement).

In line with the rule of vicinity (vicinitas), the tenements must be close enough to each other for the servient tenement to be able reasonably to enhance the use and enjoyment of the dominant tenement.

It was recognised in Re Ellenborough Park however that an easement need not be over an adjacent property, though there must clearly be some reasonable connection in which the dominant tenement can be benefitted.

If the dominant tenement is leased, even if only at equity, the benefit of the legal easement will still pass to the lesee and it will remain an easement at law albeit one enforceable by the lessee in equity only.

The terms of the agreement will provide for the nature, scope and extent of the servitude; the price to be paid by the owner of the dominant tenement as a consideration for the grant of the servitude; and the duration of the servitude.

Additionally, as an easement must be for the benefit of the dominant tenement, it was submitted that the use of the plaintiff's land to carry out repairs was merely for the benefit of Mr Greenhalf's business, and did not in any way benefit his own land.

They are vested in successive owners of one piece of land, called the dominant tenement, which derives a benefit from another piece of land, the servient tenement, belonging to someone other than the owner of the dominant tenement.

A historical example of Solar access is Ancient Lights, a doctrine based on English law that refers to a negative easement that prevents the owner or occupier of an adjoining structure from building or placing on his own land anything that has the effect of obstructing the light of the dominant tenement.

Rule 250(1) allows for easements to arise in equity through prescription where the title is registered, but a right arising through prescription would be created as a legal easement and there seems to be no part of this process where the owner of the dominant tenement has a right in equity only.

For example, if a servient tenement holder were to erect a fence blocking a legally deeded right-of-way easement, the dominant tenement holder would have to act to defend his easement rights during the statutory period or the easement might cease to have legal force, even though it would remain a deeded document.

The company said anything more than disembarking and unloading in front of their properties would contravene Harris v Flower that a dominant owner could only use a right of way granted for the enjoyment of the dominant tenement for the purposes of the dominant tenement and not for other land.