Moncrieff v Jamieson
A right to park vehicles can exist as an easement ancillary to a right of way, and the test is whether the servient owner retains reasonable use of its land.
Facts
The Moncrieffs owned a house in Shetland on the edge of the sea, at the foot of a steep slope, which could not be reached by car. They had a right of way over a neighbouring road owned by the Jamiesons, which ran to their land. They parked their cars on the Jamiesons' land at the end of the road, because it was impossible to drive down to their house. The Jamiesons argued that the right of way did not include a right to park.
Legal principle
The House of Lords, deciding the case under Scots law, held that the Moncrieffs had a right to park as an ancillary right, necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the right of way. Lord Scott said that the test should be whether the servient owner retains possession and control of the servient land, and not whether it retains reasonable use of it, but the other Law Lords did not decide the point. Lord Neuberger said that the question whether a parking right is too extensive to be an easement is a difficult one. The case is often cited in English law on whether parking can be an easement.
Related cases on easements
- Batchelor v Marlow [2001] EWCA Civ 1051, [2003] 1 WLR 764
- 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
- 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.
