Legal Case Summary
Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42
Easements and ancillary rights between dominant and servient tenements
Facts
The case was an appeal against an earlier case which had ruled that where one had a right of vehicular access from a public road, this also meant that they had a right to park on the servient tenement, although that right was limited to parking vehicles which were reasonably incidental to having access to the dominant tenement. The respondents in the case owned a property in a location which made it impossible for it to be reached by vehicle. The property had been owned by someone who also owned the land between it and the public road. A disposition of the property therefore had also included a right to access the property from the public road through the land of the original owner. A conveyance under dispute had provided a servitude right to access the appellant’s property for vehicles and pedestrians, as well as the right to temporarily stop there in order to load or unload goods or to take on or drop off passengers. The respondent had argued that his rights under the conveyance also included a right to park on the appellant’s land. He was successful with this argument in the lower courts.
Issue
The issue in this case was whether the right of way granted to the respondent to stop and drive on the appellant’s land also translated into a right to park there.
Decision / Outcome
The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the right to park could be ancillary to the easement otherwise provided where it was necessary for the enjoyment of the land which benefits from the easement, especially where this could have been in the contemplation of the parties at the time of the making of the easement (for which a deciding court must consider the full context and details of the case).
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and confirmed that ancillary rights, including a right to park, may be implied where they are reasonably necessary for the comfortable use and enjoyment of the dominant tenement and were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the grant was made.
Readers should note that this is a Scottish appeal decided under Scots property law, not English law, and the legal framework for easements in England and Wales differs in some respects. In England and Wales, the question of implied ancillary rights remains governed by common law principles, and the decision in Moncrieff has been considered but not uniformly applied by English courts. The Supreme Court’s decision in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, while primarily concerning nuisance, and subsequent case law on easements, have not materially altered the core principle discussed here. The article remains broadly accurate as a summary of the case itself, but students should be aware of the Scottish law context and should not assume the ratio applies directly and without qualification to English easement law.
