Waterman and Another v Boyle and Another: CA 27 Feb 2009

Property had been sold with a right reserved to park two vehicles on retained land. The parties now disputed whether the right included rights for additional visitors’ vehicles to use the necessary right of way and parking spaces additional to the purchasers.
Held: The grant did not include such additional rights. The test derived from Moncrieff was whether, in the circumstances of the grant, it would be a reasonable necessary use of the designated land to use it for stationing vehicles for the duration of the user’s visit to the property. It was not enough that the use was merely desirable. Once the parties had agreed and set out an explicit right, an additional right could only be implied only exceptionally.

Lord Justice Waller, Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Moore-Bick
[2009] EWCA Civ 115, [2009] 21 EG 104, [2009] 10 EG 111, [2009] NPC 33
Bailii, Times
England and Wales
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: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.311763