000			01601cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS65673
008			020726n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u119054
245			_aDas and others v Linden Mews Ltd
260			_c2002
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2002] 28 EG 130-135(6)
520			_aCA, 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.
590			_aABS
650			_aDAS AND OTHERS V LINDEN MEWS
650			_aHARRIS V FLOWER
650			_aEASEMENTS
650			_aRIGHTS OF WAY
650			_aDOMINANT TENEMENTS
650			_aCHANCERY AMENDMENT ACT 1968
650			_aPARKING
690			_aBoundary disputes _96221
942			_n0
999			_c70823 _d70823