The Student Room Group
Reply 1
I'm a bit confused as to your post question, but under W&B, any rights the owner enjoyed as ownership rights when he used the land can be implied into the conveyance the usage of it was reasonable and apparant and it was necessary for the reasonable use of the land.

s.62 covers all rights and makes them into legal rights. with regards to easements, you there's a few points you have to satisfy - i.e. characteristics of an easement etc, before it can be implied into the conveyance.
Reply 2
The conventional understanding is:

i) Wheeldon v Burrows requires unity of occupation. s62 requires diversity of occcupation.

ii) S62 requires an existing right (usually a licence) and for that right to be of a kind which could exist as an easement.

iii) Wheeldon v Burrows requires a quasi-easement (analgous to the licence requirement in s62) but additionally has the "continuous and apparent" and "nessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the land" criteria.

iv) Hence the conventional view that s62 is much easier to satisfy than Wheeldon. But note that they perform different functions.

In particular, it would be odd if all quasi-easements became easements on sale of part of a larger area of land, since it would be unlikely to be the intention or understanding of either party that the purchaser of the lot sold should have the same rights to the remaining land as were enjoyed by the former owner of the whole (e.g. it would be odd if X sold part of his garden to Y and Y could claim a right to use the toilet in X's house, because X often used the toilet when he came in from the garden).

Whereas this isn't nearly as big an issue with s62. Clearly it is questionable whether licences should magically become legal easements. But at least the fact that X had granted Y a licence previously shows a common understanding that Y should have that right - and defines fairly precisely what that right is. So there is no need to have a criterion to help identify the right ("continuous and apparent" in Wheeldon) or a criterion to justify conferring it on Y ("necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of land").
Reply 3
Thanks mja, I think the most important point you made is the diversity of occupation: Wheeldon v Burrows where there is no prior diversity; s.62 where there is.
Reply 4
Doing a land law exam in 2014 (today) and the above was SO useful, so just wanna say thanks!
Who knew a thread from 5 years ago would be so useful. :borat: