[2009] EWCA Civ 115, 27 February 2009. Case shows that where there was an express right to park attaching to a property, it was unlikely that a further right to park would arise by implication. The appellant homeowners (B) appealed against an order made in relation to boundary disputes arising between them and the respondents (W), W's right of access over land and parking rights. B lived in a property originally owned by W. The transfer provided for parking at B's property of two private vehicles on designated land over which both parties had a common right of access. B argued that cars could be driven along and parked there by their visitors. The main issue was the question of whether the right to park could be implied from a right of vehicular access, following the House of Lords' decision in Montcrieff v Jameson. Held: appeal allowed in part. Regarding the key issue of parking rights, the test was whether it would be a reasonably necessary use of the land for vistors to park there. It was not enough for it to be desirable. If any further parking rights had been intended it would have been indicated in the transfer. The original judge had wrongly applied Moncrieff.