000			01808cab a22003375a 4500
001			L139840
008			070814s2007 xxk f 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u139840
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aHill-Smith, Alexander
245	0	0	_aRights of parking and the ouster principle after Batchelor v Marlow
260			_c2007
490		0	_aConveyancer and Property Lawyer _vMay-June 2007, 223-234(12)
520			_aThis article is concerned with when and under what circumstances an easement of parking will be legally recognised. Difficult questions arise in relation to the easement of parking because of the application of the ouster principle. In simple terms, the ouster principle says that an easement cannot arise where the effect of the purported easement is such as to exclude the beneficial owner from all reasonable use of his or her land that is subject to the easement. Looks critically at the principle authorities on the ouster principle, and considers how this principle has been applied in the context of easements of parking, with reference to "Batchelor v Marlow" ([2001] EWCA Civ 1051), X115650) and other case law. [Taken from journal abstract].
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aBATCHELOR V MARLOW
650	2	4	_aATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTHERN NIGERIA V JOHN HOLT AND CO (LIVERPOOL) LTD
650	2	4	_aWRIGHT V MACADAM
650	2	4	_aCOPELAND V GREENHALF
650	2	4	_aRE ELLENBOROUGH PARK
650	2	4	_aLONDON AND BLENHEIM ESTATES V LADBROKE RETAIL PARKS LTD
650	2	4	_aMILLER V EMCER PRODUCTS LTD
650	2	4	_aJACKSON V MULVANEY
650	2	4	_aNEWMAN V JONES
650	2	4	_aSAEED V PLUSTRADE
650	2	4	_aMONTROSE COURT HOLDINGS V SHAMASH
650	2	4	_aDYCE V HAY
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aBoundary disputes _96221
942			_n0
999			_c79101 _d79101