header-logo header-logo

18 June 2009 / Nathaniel Duckworth , Stephanie Tozer
Issue: 7374 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Put to rights

Stephanie Tozer & Nathaniel Duckworth discuss recent cases on & around rights of way

Stephanie Tozer & Nathaniel Duckworth discuss recent cases on & around rights of way
Despite the prevailing doom and gloom about development prospects in the present economic climate, there have been several recent cases concerning rights of way. In this article, we summarise the effect of four of them. We will use the following abbreviations: O is the servient owner and W is the person with the benefit of the right of way.
In Waterman v Boyle [2009] EWCA Civ 115, the Court of Appeal considered the vexed question of whether (or rather, when) a right to park will be implied in a right of way.
Decision
A right to park can only be implied if it is reasonably necessary for the exercise of the right of way. The test was not met in this case because there were other parking facilities available to W.
Comment
The Court of Appeal has clarified that the test for whether a right to park

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll