Case details

Regency Villas Title Ltd and others (Respondents/Cross-Appellants) v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd and others (Appellants/Cross-Respondents)

Case ID: UKSC 2017/0083

Case summary


In the context of easements, what is the correct approach to the requirement that to qualify as an easement a right must accommodate the dominant tenement in the sense that it provides "utility and benefit" in the use of the dominant land? In particular, what is the correct approach when the right is a right to recreation which is enjoyed in a self-contained way on the servient land? The correctness of the decision in Re Ellenborough Park is also in issue.


The issue in the appeal is whether a transfer made in 1981 granted to the respondents easements (being property rights) to use the gardens, and sporting and recreational facilities on the appellants’ land, or whether the transfer simply granted personal rights incapable of being transferred to a third party. The judge found that the 1981 transfer did create easements to use (free of charge) the gardens and sporting and recreational facilities on the appellants’ land, even where these had not been built or contemplated at the time of the transfer in 1981. The Court of Appeal upheld the majority of the easements identified by the trial judge, but found that on the proper interpretation of the grant, facilities which were built after the time of the 1981 transfer were not included. The appellants now appeal that decision.

Judgment appealed


Appellants / Cross-Respondents
  1. Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd
  2. Diamond Resorts Broome Park Golf Ltd
  3. Summit Developments Ltd
Respondents / Cross-Appellants
  1. Regency Villas Title Ltd
  2. George Edwards
  3. Victor Roberts
  4. The Estate of William Malcolm Ratcliffe (Deceased)
  5. Brian Andrews



Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Briggs

Hearing start date

04 Jul 2018

Hearing finish date

05 Jul 2018

Watch hearing
04 Jul 2018 Morning session Afternoon session
05 Jul 2018 Morning session