Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42

Facts

• The dispute arose over property not directly accessible from a public road, situated behind land originally held by the same owner.
• The property was granted a right of access over the intervening land to the public road via a disposition and subsequent conveyance, creating a servitude for vehicular and pedestrian access.
• The access grant included a right to temporarily stop for loading and unloading goods or passengers.
• The owner of the dominant tenement asserted that the grant implicitly included a right to park vehicles on the servient land.
• Lower courts held in favour of the dominant tenement owner, finding parking to be an ancillary right to the granted access.
• The servient landowner appealed to the House of Lords, contesting the interpretation that parking was included as an ancillary right.

Issues

1. Whether an express grant of a vehicular right of way (including loading/unloading) also confers a right to park as an ancillary right on the servient land.
2. Whether the right to park is necessary for the proper use and full enjoyment of the dominant tenement, considering the circumstances at the time the easement was created.
3. Whether the scope of ancillary rights should be determined by strict interpretation of the grant’s wording or by reference to the necessity and contemplation of the parties.

Decision

• The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts’ decisions.
• The court determined that parking could be regarded as an ancillary right to the expressly granted easement of access.
• The test applied was whether the ancillary right was essential for the enjoyment of the dominant tenement and could reasonably have been in the contemplation of the parties at the easement’s creation.
• The circumstances—particularly the lack of direct public road access—made parking necessary for normal use of the dominant land.
• The court emphasized the importance of practical circumstances and factual background in interpreting the scope of ancillary rights.

Legal Principles

• Ancillary rights may attach to easements if reasonably necessary for the effective enjoyment of the dominant tenement, not solely those expressly granted.
• The determination of ancillary rights focuses on necessity: the right must be more than convenient; its absence would render the primary grant largely ineffective.
• Easements are interpreted in light of the practical context and the reasonable expectations of the parties, not by strict legal formalism.
• The context and anticipated use at the time of the grant are central to the scope of any ancillary right.

Conclusion

The House of Lords established that a right to park can be an ancillary right to an express grant of access if it is necessary for the full and reasonable enjoyment of the dominant tenement, confirming a contextual and necessity-based approach to ancillary rights in easement law.