References: Times 07-Jun-2000, Gazette 25-May-2000, Gazette 08-Jun-2000, (2001) 82 P & CR 36
Ratio: The applicant claimed parking rights as an easement. If an easement was capable of arising by virtue of a deed of grant, it could also be acquired by prescription. This was such an easement. Use in the absence of planning permission did not vitiate the acquisition by prescription, since the use did not become unlawful until a planning enforcement notice had been served.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – P and S Platt Ltd v Crouch and Another CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 1110, Times 27-Aug-03, [2004] 1 P& CR 18)
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 . . - Appeal from – Batchelor v Marlow and Another CA (Gazette 12-Jul-01, Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 1051, [2003] 1 WLR 764)
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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 20 September 2018
Ref: 78277
The post Batchelor v Marlow and Another: ChD 25 May 2000 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.