Local inhabitants requested the alteration of the Town and Village Green register to include land over which they claimed use as of right for more than twenty years. The difference between acquiescence, which would allow the claim, and tolerance or permission which would defeat it is the presence of some positive act of consent. As well as explicit oral or written consent, it might be inferred from the owner’s acts. In this case, the grass had continued to be cut, and seating had been provided. It could only have been seen as a recreational area provided for the public. The use was by consent, and the land was not to be registered.
Judges:
Lord Justice Dyson, Lord Justice Latham, Mr Justice Wilson
Citations:
Times 29-Aug-2001, Gazette 13-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1218, [2002] QB 874
Links:
Statutes:
Commons Registration Act 1965 13 22(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Regina v City of Sunderland, ex parte Beresford Admn 14-Nov-2000
A recreational area was claimed to be a common. The council considered that there was evidence, which it accepted, of an implied licence, thus enabling the inference to be drawn that the use by local inhabitants for statutory purposes had not been . .
Cited by:
Appealed To – Regina v City of Sunderland, ex parte Beresford Admn 14-Nov-2000
A recreational area was claimed to be a common. The council considered that there was evidence, which it accepted, of an implied licence, thus enabling the inference to be drawn that the use by local inhabitants for statutory purposes had not been . .
Appeal from – Regina v City of Sunderland ex parte Beresford HL 13-Nov-2003
Land had been used as a park for many years. The council land owner refused to register it as a common, saying that by maintaining the park it had indicated that the use was by consent and licence, and that prescription did not apply.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Limitation
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159911
