000			02037cab a22002415a 4500
001			L146884
008			090309e20090227xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u146884
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aWaterman and Anor v Boyle and Anor _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2009
520			_a[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.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aCANNON V VILLARS
650	2	4	_aBULSTRODE V LAMBERT
650	2	4	_aLONDON AND SUBURBAN LAND AND BUILDING CO LTD V CAREY
650	2	4	_aMONCRIEFF AND ANOTHER V JAMIESON AND OTHERS
650	2	4	_aCELESTEEL LTD V ALTON HOUSE HOLDINGS
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT-BOUNDARY DETERMINATION PROPERTY-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT-EASEMENTS-RIGHTS OF WAY
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org./ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/115.html/ _zView the case at: www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c81316 _d81316