CA, 1 May 2002. Appellants (D) owned properties 4 and 5 facing each other at the end of Linden Mews. The carriageway to the mews ended in a wall and D had built a gate in the wall to facilitate access to a garden area. The garden was later divided between the owners of nos 4 and 5, both of whom used it to park cars. The defendant freehold owner of the carriageway (L) claimed D did not have any rights of way over the carriageway for the purpose of gaining access to the garden, citing the rule in "Harris v Flower" (1904). An injunction restraining such use was granted. D appealed, contending that parking in the garden area was ancillary to the use of no 4. "Held": appeal allowed in part. D did not have a right of way over the carriageway in order to access the garden area because D was extending the dominant tenement and this could not be done. However, the matter was referred to the trial judge to decide whether damages should be awarded under Lord Cairns' Act.