Right to exclusive use precludes easement
Series: CSM ; November/December 2001, 34(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Discusses how two recent CA cases have clarified the law regarding the distinction between easements and excluse rights over property. In "Hanina v Morland" the defendant's claim that she was entitled to a prescriptive easement to use the roof of a three storey property failed. A similar conclusion was drawn in "Batchelor v Marlow" which concerned a right of way over an upadopted road. It was found that the respondents practice of parking cars did not constitute a valid easement.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS64976 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 116432-1001 |
Discusses how two recent CA cases have clarified the law regarding the distinction between easements and excluse rights over property. In "Hanina v Morland" the defendant's claim that she was entitled to a prescriptive easement to use the roof of a three storey property failed. A similar conclusion was drawn in "Batchelor v Marlow" which concerned a right of way over an upadopted road. It was found that the respondents practice of parking cars did not constitute a valid easement.