Leading Case: Batchelor v. Marlow
Parking rights have existed by means of lease or licence for quite a long period of time. On the other hand, until quite recently, whether a right to park was recognisable in the form of an easement had been much more ambiguous. In this area of the law Batchelor v. Marlow [2003] is the leading case; it has been effectively used to clarify the subject. The case is known best for approving the test devised by Judge Paul Baker QC in the High Court case of London and Blenheim Estates Ltd v. Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd [1993]. This test acknowledged that the right to park could exist an easement provided that it would not ‘leave the servient without any reasonable use of his land’. Having been approved in the Court of Appeal, the test remains binding on inferior courts despite certain criticisms concerning its efficacy in deciding whether an easement of parking should or should not be granted.
Ancillary Case: Kettel v. Bloomfold Ltd
Owing to Batchelor’s importance in the granting of easements, the test has been applied in a variety of recent cases. Kettel v. Bloomfold Ltd [2012] is a case in which the test played a major role in granting an easement over parking spaces designated for use by the lessees of flats owned by the defendant. HH Judge David Cooke found upon application of the test that such a right would not ‘leave the servient owner without reasonable use of his land’3; meaning that a right to park could indeed be established as an easement.
In terms of similarity between the two cases there are two clear points of correspondence. Most notably, during both proceedings it was accepted the fact that there are circumstances under which the right to park may exist as an easement. Kettel is ...
... middle of paper ...
... ibid, para 3 ibid, para 5
Moncreiff v. Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42, [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2620
Caroline Shea, ‘Parking Rights: ‘Here To Stay? Consent May Be The Surprising Answer’ (03/12/2013), In-House Lawyer, (http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/real-estate/10384-parking-rights-here-to-stay-consent-might-be-the-surprising-answer-) - accessed 20/12/2013 para 8; (citing obiter comments by their Lordships in Moncreiff v. Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42, [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2620)
Caroline Shea, ‘Parking Rights: ‘Here To Stay? Consent May Be The Surprising Answer’ (03/12/2013), In-House Lawyer, (http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/real-estate/10384-parking-rights-here-to-stay-consent-might-be-the-surprising-answer-) - accessed 20/12/2013, para 10 ibid, para 14 ibid, para 15 ibid, para 17
Roger J. Smith, Property law: Cases and Materials, (7th edn, 2012, Pearson)
Lord Wilberforce, the judges who presided over the Anns v. Merton case used a two-step test in determining the scope of proximity between the homeowner and the municipality. The first part of the test determined whether the relationship between the two parties was sufficient enough so that failure to exercise a duty of care by one of the parties would result in damages sustained by the other. The second step, pursuant upon the first step looks at any aspects that would limit the obligations placed on the party to exercise a duty of care. This test and the Anns v. Merton case set a strong precedent that was used in the Kamloops v. Nielson case, the first of its kind in Canada.
Findings & Recommendations: As in the case of the O’Hara Transport company, it is not the city’s place to mind the personal interest of some over that of the public good.
The need for the law to recognise possessory and equitable interests in land under a system of registration of title is a contested issue in Australia. The term ‘title’ means the extent of ownership over property as recognised by the legal system. For the purpose of this essay, a system of registration of title means the Torrens title system. The protection of possessory and equitable interests in Western Australia will be discussed, with reference to the Torrens title system and real property. It will be argued that there is still a need for the law to recognise equitable interests in land, however, the Torrens framework does remove the need for the law for the law to recognise possessory interests, in particular the doctrine of adverse possession.
apartments in certain areas of a city. The goal is usually to protect the rights
Unlike Halford and Britt in which the defendant’s licenses were suspended for not appearing in court and maintaining insurance, which were all administrative in nature, Haley’s suspension of her driver’s license was more about her failure to obey. Haley had three tickets for failure to obey construction zone marker for three consecutive days and one for disregarding traffic control device. Compare to the violations of procedural issues in Halford, the violation in this case were more related to driving issues. Parking in the wrong spot could be the result of not be able to park in the right spot which crowed by other
Rehnquist, William H., Brennan, William J. "A Casebook on the Law and Society: What Rights
Nereim, Vivian. 2010. “243 cited, 84 towed during Southside parking blitz.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 11. Retrieved January 18, 2011 (http://www.postgazette.com/pg/10284/1094213-53.stm).
Refusing to make the declaration, the House of Lords upheld that the 1949 Act has been sanctioned validly using the 1911 Act, and that the Hunting Act had been approved using the modified process. It was affirmed...
It is of the recommendation of this lawyer that the action of the Department of City Planning in regulating the properties of the NYAEE owners has violated the vested rights of private property ownership. The NYAEE property owners affected by the regulations should file a law suit against the city for the compensation of the property acquired by the government regulations.
Nigel Covington, editor of The National Report gives a brief summary at the end of his article stating that James Holmes, who murdered twelve people in a movie theater, will only be charged with illegally parking his car in a handicapped parking spot when he murdered the victims. After already dropping the charges because Holmes is white, it turns out he is not above the law and will have to pay an eighty dollar fine for parking in handicap parking (Covington). Covington makes a mockery about the fact that the only punishment a man who killed twelve people will get a measly fine for parking in the wrong
“Gratz v. Bollinger.” The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 02 January 2014. .
The name of the parties are (appellant) commissioner of the police of the metropolis,(respondent) Mr. Michael Rottman . The judgment has been held in the house of lords. The judges on this were- Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Roger of Earlsferry. The barristers and solicitors in this case were, Mr. Perry, on behalf of the appellant and Miss Montgomery, for the respondent. The date of the judgment was 16th may 2002.
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
The case of R v Hughes will be used throughout this essay to supplement ...
such as parking or benches play a part in how people “negotiate” spaces (Winders, 2011). The