Saeed v Plustrade Ltd: CA 20 Dec 2001

The court considered a parking management scheme imposed by freeholders on an estate. The result would be to reduce the number of parking spaces from 13 to 4.
Held: (Sir Christopher Slade) ‘The lease in terms conferred upon the lessee ‘the right to park his private motor car’. The parties clearly contemplated that this was a right which would be capable of being exercised. As [counsel] pointed out on behalf of the claimant, the function of specifying a part of the retained property for parking purposes was equally clearly conferred upon the lessor for the purpose of giving effect of that right and not for the purpose of enabling him to extinguish it. The subject matter of the grant of a right to park was not on the true construction of paragraph 7 of the second schedule to the lease a right wholly determinable at the whim of the lessor.’ and ‘The attitude of the defendant as revealed in past correspondence appears to have been ‘since we have the power to specify a parking area it logically follows that we have the power to withdraw a specification or not to specify at all’. In my judgment, this attitude represents a breach of the well known and well established principle that a grantor shall not derogate from his grant.’ and ‘In my judgment, however, [counsel] was right when he pointed out that the relevant date for determining whether or not there has been a substantial interference is not 1985 but the date of the interference. His submissions in this context were very simple. But for the interference the claimant was able to park on some 12 or 13 spaces in competition with a number of other persons. At that point she was restricted to parking on 3 or 4 spaces in competition with the same number of persons. This must constitute substantial interference with the enjoyment of her right.’
Sir Christopher Slade
[2002] 25 Estates Gazette 154, [2001] EWCA Civ 2011, [2002] EGLR 19
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMontrose Court Holdings Ltd and Another v Shamash and others CA 21-Feb-2006
Tenants challenging power of freeholders to impose parking regulations on occupiers of development. The landlord appealed.
Held: ‘the regulations in the present case – which limited the right to park to the parking of one vehicle at a time – . .
CitedSommer and Another v Sweet and Another CA 10-Mar-2005
The claimants had sought entry into theirs and their neighbour’s registered land titles of entries to acknowledge their rights of way. The neighbours appealed the finding of a right of way of necessity and by proprietary estoppel, and an order for . .
CitedChaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
CitedChaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 January 2021; Ref: scu.167869