Moncrieff and another v Jamieson and others [electronic resource]
Moncrieff and another v Jamieson and others [electronic resource]
- 2007
[2007] UKHL 42, 17 October 2007. Considers whether a right of access across land belonging to another party also included a right to park on the area where access was permitted. The appellant (J) owned a property with access from a public road, and the respondents (M) a property adjacent. Access rights across a servient tenement of J's land were necessary to access M's property. Parking was not possible on M's property. M claimed the accessory right to park upon the servient tenement. The Sheriff had upheld this claim, serving a permanent inderdict, and the court of session dismissed a first appeal by J. J argued that in Scottish law it was not possible for there to be a servitude of parking. J also submitted the Sheriff's permanent inderdict was unnecessary and too vague. "Held": The concept of a servitudal right to park was established in law and there could be no fundamental objection to this. Access rights had to be construed in light of the circumstances when they were granted. However it was not necessary to show the enjoyment of servitude to have been in use at that time. Given the circumstances, the grant was justified. Appeal dismissed.
MONCRIEFF AND ANOTHER V JAMIESON AND OTHERS
Scotland--1999-
[2007] UKHL 42, 17 October 2007. Considers whether a right of access across land belonging to another party also included a right to park on the area where access was permitted. The appellant (J) owned a property with access from a public road, and the respondents (M) a property adjacent. Access rights across a servient tenement of J's land were necessary to access M's property. Parking was not possible on M's property. M claimed the accessory right to park upon the servient tenement. The Sheriff had upheld this claim, serving a permanent inderdict, and the court of session dismissed a first appeal by J. J argued that in Scottish law it was not possible for there to be a servitude of parking. J also submitted the Sheriff's permanent inderdict was unnecessary and too vague. "Held": The concept of a servitudal right to park was established in law and there could be no fundamental objection to this. Access rights had to be construed in light of the circumstances when they were granted. However it was not necessary to show the enjoyment of servitude to have been in use at that time. Given the circumstances, the grant was justified. Appeal dismissed.
MONCRIEFF AND ANOTHER V JAMIESON AND OTHERS
Scotland--1999-