Main case: Batchelor v. MarlowParking rights have existed by way of lease or license for quite a long period of time. On the other hand, until very recently, the question of whether a parking right was recognizable as an easement was much more ambiguous. In this area of ​​law, Batchelor v. Marlow [2003] is the landmark judgment; it was used effectively to clarify the subject. The case is best known for endorsing the test developed by Mr Justice Paul Baker QC in the High Court case of London and Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd [1993]. This test recognized that the right to park could constitute an easement provided that it did not “leave the servant without any reasonable use of his land.” Having been approved by the Court of Appeal, the test remains binding on lower courts despite some criticism of its effectiveness in deciding whether or not a parking easement should be granted. Ancillary case: Kettel v. Bloomfold LtdDue to Batchelor's importance in granting easements, the test has been applied in various recent cases. Kettel v Bloomfold Ltd [2012] is a case in which the test played a major role in the granting of an easement over parking spaces for use by tenants of apartments owned by the defendant. Justice David Cooke concluded, after applying the test, that such a right would not “leave the servient owner without a reasonable use of his land”3; which means that a parking right could effectively be established in the form of an easement. In terms of similarity between the two cases, there are two obvious points of correspondence. In particular, during both proceedings it was accepted that there are circumstances in which the right to park may exist as an easement. Kettel is ...... middle of paper ...... ibid, para 3 ibid, para 5Moncreiff c. Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42, [2007] 1 WLR 2620 Caroline Shea, 'Parking Rights: 'Here To Stay? Consent may be the surprising answer” (03/12/2013), in-house lawyer, (http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/real-estate/10384-parking-rights-here-to - (remain-consent-could-be-the-surprising-answer-) - accessed 12/20/2013 para 8; (quoting their Lordships' obiter in Moncreiff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42, [2007] 1 WLR 2620)Caroline Shea, 'Parking rights: “Here to stay? “Consent may be the surprising answer” (03/12/2013), in-house lawyer, (http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/real-estate/10384-parking-rights-here-to -stay-consent-might-be-the-surprising-answer-) - accessed 12/20/2013, para 10 ibid, para 14 ibid, para 15 ibid, para 17 Roger J. Smith, Property law: Cases and Materials, (7th edition, 2012, Pearson)