Batchelor v Marlow
A right to park cars on a strip of land during working hours on weekdays was not an easement, because it left the owner without any reasonable use of the land.
Facts
Mr Marlow ran a garage business and, for many years, had parked up to six cars on a strip of land owned by Mr Batchelor, between 9.30 am and 6 pm on weekdays. He claimed that he had acquired an easement to park by prescription. The trial judge held that he had an easement.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that there was no easement. Tuckey LJ said that the question was whether the servient owner was left without any reasonable use of his land, whether for parking or anything else. The right claimed would make the owner's ownership illusory, because he could use the land only in the evenings and at weekends, and could not use it for parking during the working day. The right was therefore too extensive to be an easement. The reasoning was doubted by Lord Scott in Moncrieff v Jamieson.
Related cases on easements
- Copeland v Greenhalf [1952] Ch 488
- Dalton v Angus & Co (1881) 6 App Cas 740
- Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131
- Hill v Tupper (1863) 2 H & C 121
- Mills v Silver [1991] Ch 271
- Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42, [2007] 1 WLR 2620
- Nickerson v Barraclough [1981] Ch 426
- Phipps v Pears [1965] 1 QB 76
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
