The claimant sought a declaration that the caution registered by the defendant should be vacated. The defendant asserted acquisition by prescription either of an easement or of the land itself. They had parked vehicles on the land.
Held: Whilst it was possible to acquire an easement of parking over land, this was not possible where the extent claimed was such as to extinguish the servient owner’s enjoyment of his land, and to render his occupation illusory. Nor had the defendant acquired title by adverse possession, and nor had the land become a public right of way.
Engelhart QC J added a further ground for rejecting a claim in prescription: ‘I am unable to accept that such parking as there was, whether by Leicester Dyers employees or delivery men when making deliveries, can properly be categorised as user as of right by Leicester Dyers itself. It must be remembered that, where an easement exists, it can only do so for the benefit of the dominant tenement. The personal convenience of individual employees or delivery men is not enough.’
Engelhart QC J
Times 18-Feb-2003, Gazette 20-Mar-2003, [2003] All ER (D) 141
Highways Act 1980 31
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – London Tara Hotel Ltd v Kensington Close Hotel Ltd ChD 1-Nov-2010
The defendant asserted that it had acquired the right to use a private access road over the claimant’s land. There had been a licence granted under which an earlier owner had been said to have used the land. The defendant claimed under the 1832 Act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.179314
