London and Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd: ChD 29 Jul 1992

A right to park was claimed as an easement.
Held: The question whether the right to park that had been claimed was consistent with the nature of an easement was one of degree: ‘A small coal shed in a large property is one thing. The exclusive use of a large part of the alleged servient tenement is another.’
There can be no possible easement without there being both dominant and servient tenements at all times. The court asked what extent of use could be granted and the grant still be an easement: ‘The essential question is one of degree. If the right granted in relation to the area over which it is to be exercisable is such that it would leave the servient owner without any reasonable use of his land, whether for parking or anything else, it could not be an easement though it might be some larger or different grant.’


His Honour Judge Paul Baker QC


Gazette 29-Jul-1992, [1992] 1 WLR 1278, [1993] 4 All ER 157


England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromLondon and Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd CA 1-Jun-1993
The land-owner sold part of his land, granting easements over the retained land, and an agreement that, if further plots were purchased, similar easements would be granted. The agreement stated that the purchaser should have the right to give notice . .
CitedP 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 . .
CitedBatchelor 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 . .
CitedNationwide Building Society v Walter D Allan Ltd ScS 4-Aug-2004
Lady Smith said that she could not conclude that Scots law recognises, in principle, a servitude right of parking independent of any right of access. . .
CitedMoncrieff 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: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.83153