This situation revolves around the notion of easement, which refer to a right that one party exercise over

the land of another

for certain purpose. Easement involves dominant tenement, which benefits from easement, and servient tenement, which is
burdened by the easement. In the instance to use the shortcut to access the darrington station (Right of way) here Clarrie
serves as dominant tenement while Susan who leased the cottage. While in next situation, where Susan was allowed to keep
her motorhome in the barn (Right to park/right of security) here Susan is considered as dominant tenement, further in context
to use the hot tube here susan is deemed as serveint and lastly under the scenario to hang the sign board of the cottage wall
(Right to Advertise/Hang) Susan was regarded as servient tenement as she lease the cottage at that time.

As we now know about the rights which might involve in this question, to recognize these rights we have to asses these rights
with the Ellenborough criteria; in the first situation as there is a dominant and servient tenement and this right is not use for
the personal advantage and the right here is also not vague, there must not exist the exclusive possession, the right must be
exercisable and there must exist proximity. The right to park the motorhome in the barn is recognize as an easement as there
exist the both dominant and servient tenement or there also exist the diversity of occupation, the right is not of personal nature
and there exist the diversity of occupation and the question here arise is that here exclusive possession exist or not? As here
exclusive possession won’t exist as Clarrie kept a key cut for him which indicates that here exclusive possession might not exist
but here the case of Montcrieff v Jamieson is also applied. In the next situation the right to use the hot tube here is considered
as a personal advantage as from the case of Hill v Tupper which states that any right which is only for the personal advantage of
either the servient or dominant tenement might not be regarded as an easement. Here also the other elements of the Re
Ellenborough criteria is satisfied which is that there must exist dominant and servient tenement, here exist the diversity of
occupation and the easement must not be vague or uncertain. Furthermore, here the right of hang a sign board is recognize by
this criteria as here exist the both dominant and servient tenement, also exist diversity of occupation as cottage is leased by
Clarrie, as the sign board is not considered as of personal advantage from the case Moody v Steggles which states that a right
which specifically benefits the business carried on the dominant land could be a valid easement, so this right might recognize as
an easement. Here the right of way, right of park and to hang a sign is recognize as an easement from the criteria of Re
Ellenborough Park criteria.

As there wasn’t any express declaration of easement so within this scenario all easement would be given impliedly as there
hasn’t any deed or express declaration. So the creation of the right of way can also be created through the principle of
Wheeldon v Burrows principle. This principle requires the quasi easement to be continuous and apparent, regularly used and
visible upon inspection. As the susan used the shortcut weekly this how that the right is continuous (Milman v Ellis) and as the
shortcut is path so it is discoverable easily (Ward v Kirkland) so the problem here is that when the permission was given there
wasn’t any diversity of occupation which means that as the lease agreement was yet not signed so at that time clarrie would be
the sole owner of the land so from the case of Long v Gowlett which states that there must be diversity of occupation between
the dominant and servient tenement to convert right into an easement. So from this case this clear that this right might not be
created as an easement as there wasn’t any diversity of occupation.

The right to park is created through easement under s.62 of LPA 1925, this allows the landowner to transfer their exist rights to
a purchaser. This also has some requirements; renewal of conveyance, diversity of occupation and permission (license) to use
the land. This section is a powerful statutory provision as it converts the precarious rights into easements for the benefit of the
land sold. So firstly as Clarrie gave permission to susan to use barn to park her motorhome this was given after the land has
been leased by the Susan so this show that here diversity of occupation also exist as Susan is tenant of the Clarrie and after that
at 2021 Clarrie renewed her lease so this also fulfill one of the requirement of this section. Now the question arise here is that
can tom stop susan from using his barn from her right to park her motorhome at the barn? Here in this situation the case of
Wright v Macadam would applied here which states as after the renewal of any lease provided to the tenant the right which
that tenant was previously enjoying would converted into easement. So keeping this case law in view, as after the leased has
been renewed from that point the permission to use the barn as for parking could be converted into an easement. So Tom can’t
stop her from using barn.

In situation of the right to hand a sign aboard, easement could be created by a statutory provision of section 62 which is also
discussed above as here the permission to hang the sign board is given after the lease was signed so here the conveyance is
occurred, as the cottage on which the sign board is hung at that time it was leased by the Susan this shows that here diversity of
occupation also established (Long v Gowlett) and after that renewal has also occurred so this satisfied all the conditions of the
s.62 and as dominant land was been leased so it might be the implied grant easement. So after fulfilling all these conditions the
question arise here is that whether there exist any easement to hang the sign board on the cottage wall here in relation to
hanging a sign board? Here the case Hair v Gilman & Inskip which states that which states that any license (permission) which is
given to the tenant would be converted into an easement as the land is being conveyed, so from this case as land is being
conveyed to the tom so at that moment the permission to hang the sign board would converted into an easement.

In conclusion, the right of way and right to park a motorhome are recognized as easements under the Re Ellenborough criteria
and Section 62 of LPA 1925, respectively. However, the right to use the hot tub may not qualify as an easement due to its
personal advantage nature, while the right to hang a sign board may be considered an easement based on statutory provisions
and case law. The creation of these easements is subject to specific conditions, such as diversity of occupation and permission.
It is crucial to note that the court has the discretion to grant easements based on the unique circumstances of each case.