If a right claimed by way of an easement would effectively deprive the servient owner of any reasonable user of the area of land over which it is exercisable, than that right is not capable of being an easement. The rights asserted here were both uncertain and too extravagant. Upjohn J rejected the claim on the ground that: ‘Practically, the defendant is claiming the whole beneficial user of the strip of land . . It is virtually a claim to possession of the servient tenement, if necessary to the exclusion of the owner.’
 Ch 488,  1 All ER 809
England and Wales
Cited – P and S Platt Ltd v Crouch and Another CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant sought a declaration that certain easements had been included by implication in a conveyance of part of land to him.
Held: Since the easements were capable of subsisting at law, and existed as quasi-easements at the time, and did . .
Cited – Batchelor v Marlow and Another CA 12-Jul-2001
The applicant claimed parking rights as an easement acquired by prescription. At first instance the rights were recognised as an easement. The rights included parking during daylight hours during weekdays. The land-owner appealed on the ground that . .
Cited – Moncrieff and Another v Jamieson and others HL 17-Oct-2007
The parties disputed whether a right of way over a road included an implied right for the dominant owner to park on the servient tenement.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The question is whether the ancillary right is necessary for the comfortable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.185831