Batchelor v Marlow, [2003] 1 WLR 764

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Memuna recently purchased a small restaurant property next to Robert’s vacant yard. She claims her title documents grant her the right to park four vehicles in Robert’s yard during her restaurant’s operating hours. Robert argues that this arrangement prevents him from using or managing his yard in any meaningful way. Memuna counters that her staff only park there during daytime hours, so Robert can still access the yard at night. Both parties want to know how a court would assess whether Memuna’s claimed parking right is an easement or not.


Which of the following statements best describes how a court is likely to apply the reasonableness or ouster principle to Memuna’s claimed parking right?

Introduction

The case of Batchelor v Marlow [2003] 1 WLR 764 deals with the limits of an easement for parking. The Court of Appeal set out a test to decide if a claimed parking easement gives exclusive control, making it invalid. This test, called the "reasonable use" test or "ouster rule," checks whether the servient owner keeps any practical use of their land. This idea is key to balancing the rights of the dominant tenement (the property with the easement benefit) and the servient tenement (the property under the easement). The court’s ruling in Batchelor v Marlow defined limits for easements, especially for parking, and shaped later property law decisions.

The Facts of Batchelor v Marlow

Mr. Batchelor argued he had an easement to park six cars on land owned by Mr. Marlow. This right came from a document allowing parking during business hours, six days a week. The main question was whether this easement blocked Mr. Marlow from using or managing his land, which would make the easement invalid.

The Reasonable Use Test

The Court of Appeal ruled the easement was too broad. Lord Justice Tuckey said the test was whether the servient owner kept any practical use of their land. Here, Mr. Marlow had no useful way to use the land because Mr. Batchelor’s cars often occupied it. The court stressed the test looks at real use, not theoretical options.

The Ouster Principle

The Batchelor v Marlow ruling shows the ouster principle. This rule stops an easement from giving the dominant owner total control, which would be like ownership. An easement allows specific use of the servient land but cannot hand over full authority. Allowing Mr. Batchelor’s claim would have given him excessive control, conflicting with the basic idea of an easement.

Comparing Batchelor v Marlow to Other Cases

This case is often compared to others where the servient owner kept enough control. For example, in Wright v Macadam [1949] 2 KB 744, storing coal in a shed on the servient land was allowed as a valid easement. The servient owner kept overall control of the shed and land. The difference is in the level of exclusivity: in Wright v Macadam, the servient owner’s use was not overly limited.

The Effect of Batchelor v Marlow on Later Cases

Batchelor v Marlow has shaped later cases on easements, especially about parking. The House of Lords case Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42 looked at the scope of easements, including rights needed to use the main easement. While Moncrieff added more detail, it kept the core idea from Batchelor about the ouster rule and reasonable use. The reasonable use test stays central in deciding if parking easements are valid.

Applying the Reasonable Use Test

Deciding "reasonable use" depends on the details. Courts look at the land’s size and type, how often and how long the easement is used, and its purpose. For example, parking one car on a large plot for short periods is more likely valid than parking many cars on a small area for long times, as in Batchelor v Marlow. A close review of the facts is needed to apply this test correctly.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Batchelor v Marlow set a key rule in property law: an easement cannot grant exclusive control. The reasonable use test, based on the ouster principle, helps decide if parking easements are valid. The case shows the need to balance both owners’ rights. Its effect on later cases, like Moncrieff v Jamieson, confirms its lasting role in easement law. Batchelor v Marlow remains a main source for legal professionals, explaining easement limits and the rules for their validity. The case highlights the need for clear easement agreements that set out rights exactly while letting the servient owner use their land practically. This method helps prevent disputes and ensures easements work as meant, supporting effective land use.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal