Furthermore, in [case], the High Court once again confirmed that Batchelor v Marlow had not been overruled and remained binding upon it. The claimant’s right to use designated parking spaces was deemed to be by virtue of an easement rather than being part of the demise under their lease. HHJ David Cooke held that the freeholder had not been deprived of reasonable use of the spaces since he could still do anything on them, except to the extent that it would be inconsistent with an express right to park a car. So, for example, he could still pass freely over the spaces on foot or by vehicle, if there was no vehicle parked on them for the time being or by avoiding one that was. He could authorise others to do the same. He could likewise choose to repair or change the surface. He could lay pipes under the space or, in principle, build above it.
Answer
Kettel & Ors v Bloomfold Ltd [2012] EWHC 1422
Tags
#easements #land #law
Question
Furthermore, in [case], the High Court once again confirmed that Batchelor v Marlow had not been overruled and remained binding upon it. The claimant’s right to use designated parking spaces was deemed to be by virtue of an easement rather than being part of the demise under their lease. HHJ David Cooke held that the freeholder had not been deprived of reasonable use of the spaces since he could still do anything on them, except to the extent that it would be inconsistent with an express right to park a car. So, for example, he could still pass freely over the spaces on foot or by vehicle, if there was no vehicle parked on them for the time being or by avoiding one that was. He could authorise others to do the same. He could likewise choose to repair or change the surface. He could lay pipes under the space or, in principle, build above it.
Answer
?
Tags
#easements #land #law
Question
Furthermore, in [case], the High Court once again confirmed that Batchelor v Marlow had not been overruled and remained binding upon it. The claimant’s right to use designated parking spaces was deemed to be by virtue of an easement rather than being part of the demise under their lease. HHJ David Cooke held that the freeholder had not been deprived of reasonable use of the spaces since he could still do anything on them, except to the extent that it would be inconsistent with an express right to park a car. So, for example, he could still pass freely over the spaces on foot or by vehicle, if there was no vehicle parked on them for the time being or by avoiding one that was. He could authorise others to do the same. He could likewise choose to repair or change the surface. He could lay pipes under the space or, in principle, build above it.
Answer
Kettel & Ors v Bloomfold Ltd [2012] EWHC 1422
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it Furthermore, in Kettel & Ors v Bloomfold Ltd [2012] EWHC 1422, the High Court once again confirmed that Batchelor v Marlow had not been overruled and remained binding upon it. The claimant’s right to use designated parking spaces was deemed to b
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.