## Facts

- Mr. Batchelor claimed an easement to park six cars on land owned by Mr. Marlow.
- The right was based on a document allowing parking during business hours, six days a week.
- The dispute centered around whether this easement prevented Mr. Marlow, the servient owner, from using or managing his land, potentially invalidating the easement.

## Issues

1. Whether the claimed easement for parking gave Mr. Batchelor exclusive control over the land, thus invalidating it as an easement.
2. Whether the servient owner, Mr. Marlow, retained any practical use of his land under the terms of the parking right.
3. Whether the reasonable use test and the ouster principle should be applied to determine the validity of the claimed easement.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the easement claimed was too extensive and effectively excluded Mr. Marlow from practical use of his land.
- The court applied the "reasonable use" test, finding that Mr. Marlow’s inability to use the land meant the right claimed could not be an easement.
- The ruling emphasized that an easement must not confer exclusive possession or control of the servient land to the dominant owner.
- Mr. Batchelor's claim was rejected as it would have granted him excessive control, contrary to the nature of an easement.

## Legal Principles

- An easement cannot grant exclusive control or possession; the servient owner must retain some practical use of the land.
- The "reasonable use" test evaluates whether the servient owner is left with any real use, not just theoretical or trivial use, of the land.
- The ouster principle prohibits an easement that effectively transfers full authority or ownership-like rights to the dominant tenement.
- Application of the reasonable use test depends on factors such as land size, use frequency, duration, and purpose.
- Batchelor v Marlow distinguished between acceptable easements, as in Wright v Macadam [1949] 2 KB 744, and those granting excessive exclusivity.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Batchelor v Marlow established that an easement must not confer exclusive control over servient land by applying the reasonable use test rooted in the ouster principle; this decision clarified the legal boundaries for parking easements and remains influential in later property law cases.


Batchelor v Marlow [2003] 1 WLR 764