Lu Xu ‘Easements of car parking: the ouster principle is out but problems may aggravate’ Conv. 2012 4 291 - 306

Following the Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] decision, looks to see whether there is now a change in attitude towards parking rights and the ouster principle. Should the ouster principle be abolished?

A Baker ‘Recreational privileges as easements: law and policy’ Conv. 2012 1, 37 - 54

Can easements be used to protect recreational privileges? Examines the differing approaches and the legal and policy arguments.

G Spark ‘Easements of parking and storage: are easements non-possessory interests in land?’ Conv. 2012 1, 6 - 18

Provides a reflective analysis of the development in the courts approach to rights to store and rights to park, using case law illustrations. Highlights issues such as possession and control, exclusive use and joint use.

A Hill-Smith ‘Rights of parking and the ouster principle after Batchelor v Marlow’ Conv. 2007 May/Jun 223 - 234

Discusses the development and application of the ‘ouster principle’, which prevents easements from arising where a servient owner is prevented from reasonable use of his land. Looks at how the decisions in Wright v Macadam [1949] and Copeland v Greenhalf [1952] have been reconciled in the case of London & Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd [1994] and how principles established in parking storage cases have been applied to parking cases with specific focus on Batchelor v Marlow [2003].

L Tee ‘Metamorphoses and section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925’ Conv. 1998 Mar/Apr 115 - 124

Discusses the ability for a mere personal right to transform into a legal easement by virtue of the operation of section 62, with particular focus upon the cases of International Tea Stores Co. v Hobbs [1903] and Wright v Macadam [1949]. Considers the new approach suggested by the Law Commission as to how section 62 should operate.

A Lawson ‘Easements’ Land Law: Issues, Debates and Policy L Tee (Willan 2002) 64 - 97

Identifies the underlying currents that influence a court when reaching decisions concerning easements. Then considers in more depth i) the requirement that there must be a dominant land which benefits from the easement and ii) the circumstances upon which an easement may be impliedly acquired.

Law Commission ‘Making land work: easements, covenants and profits a prendre (Law Com No 327)

Looks at proposals for reform to the law of easements.

S J Douglas, 'Reforming Implied Easements' (2015) 131 LQR 251

Looking into how the law in relation to implied easements can be clarified and reformed to meet 21^st century demands.