<p>Gale on Easements:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Interprets both statute and case law, suggesting solutions to problems which may arise in practice</li>
	<li>Sets out what constitutes an easement and goes on to focus on particular types, such as right of light, rights of way, air and support, boundaries and access to neighbouring land</li>
	<li>Traces cases to the present day from an historical point of view</li>
	<li>Explains the development of the law via in-depth analysis of latest case law</li>
	<li>Offers remedies and advice for when an easement has been disturbed</li>
	<li>Provides summaries and examination of case law, including a wide range of Commonwealth cases</li>
	<li>Goes through the ways easements can be created</li>
	<li>Examines the how easements can be extinguished</li>
	<li>Defines what amounts to disturbance of easements and identifies the available remedies</li>
</ul>

<p>This 21st edition brings the reader up to date on the key caselaw developments since the last edition in 2016, including:</p>

<ul>
	<li>The decision of the Supreme Court in the Regency Villas case, which reviewed the essential characteristics of an easement as originally identified in Re Ellenborough Park which clarifies numerous points</li>
	<li>Plymouth (Earl of) v Rees in the Court of Appeal which considered the implied limitations on an apparently wide right of entry reserved in a lease and set out the principles to be applied in construing such reservations</li>
	<li>Welford v Graham in which the burden of proof in prescription claims was elucidated</li>
	<li>The rule in Harris v Flower that a right of way may only be used for gaining access to the land identified as the dominant tenement in the grant continues to give rise to problems at the margins. Gore v Naheed says that it is all a matter of construction. Whether this enables all the authorities to be reconciled is discussed in detail</li>
	<li>Poste Hotels Limited v Cousins and London Borough of Brent v Malvern Mews which provided an interesting pair of decisions about when the court should grant a negative declaration; in one such a declaration was not granted and in the other it was</li>
</ul>

<p>Plus analysis of the many other decisions both at first instance and on appeal which illustrate established principles.</p>
