Category: Land

Regina v Secretary of State for Environment ex parte Billson: Admn 16 Feb 1998

A deed granting access to a common in accordance with the section included access by horseback as well as by foot. The court upheld the Inspector’s decision that the 20-year user of the land relied upon by the applicant for the modification was not ‘as of right’ because a revocable deed by the landowner’s predecessor under section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 rendered the use as by way of licence. There was no need for evidence of communication to users of the way of an intention not to dedicate or for evidence of continuity of such intention throughout the 20-year period: ‘The authorities cited by Mr Laurence, Ex parte Blake [1984] JPL 101, Ex parte Cowell [1993] JPL 851, Ward’s case, 70 P and CR 585 and O’Keefe’s case do no more than establish the proposition that evidence of the landowner’s intention must be overt and contemporaneous. Thus, it will not avail the landowner to assert after the event that he had no intention to dedicate, but he is not required to publicise his intention to users of the way.
The only dicta to the contrary are those of Denning LJ in Fairey . . Mr Laurence accepts that they were obiter. In so far as they equate the evidence necessary to satisfy the proviso with the evidence necessary to bring home to the public that their right to use the way is being called into question, they go too far . .
Implicit in Mr Laurence’s submissions is the existence of a very fine line between acts that are sufficiently ‘open and notorious’ to be capable of bringing the landowner’s intention not to dedicate to the attention of the public, and those which are not so open and notorious that they succeed in bringing the use of the way into question. His approach seems to me to leave little if any scope for the operation of the proviso. The landowner must not keep his intention locked in his own mind, but whether his acts are fairly described as overt or covert must be a question of fact for the inspector.
I do not accept Mr Laurence’s submission that for the proviso to operate at all there must be evidence that there was no intention to dedicate for the whole of the 20-year period. Whilst ‘that period’ is a reference back to the 20-year period, ‘during that period’ is not to be equated with ‘throughout that period’. Thus, if there is sufficient evidence that for say five or ten years during the 20-years’ period a landowner who objected to riders or walkers across his land had no intention to dedicate, that would defeat a claim of dedication under section 31(1). I consider that such an approach is consistent with that adopted by Balcombe LJ in Ex parte Cowell . . in respect of the effect of a section 31(3) notice which is not maintained throughout the whole of the relevant period. It is effective for the period during which it is maintained. If the evidence shows that there was no intention to dedicate for only a very short period during the 20 year period questions of de minimis may well arise. They would have to be resolved on the facts by the inspector hearing the evidence.’

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Times 04-Mar-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 189, [1999] QB 374, [1998] 3 WLR 1240

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 193(1), Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 53(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Criticised – Fairey v Southampton City Council CA 1956
The landowner denied that a public right of way had been created over his land. Under the 1932 Act, 20 years user expiring at any time, even before the Act came into force, was capable of giving rise to a deemed dedication of a public highway under . .

Cited by:

Cited – Besley v John CA 29-Oct-2003
The defendant farmed land adjacent to land over which he had registered rights of common allowing him to graze sheep. The freeholders brought the action saying that the use was in excess of the rights. He counter-claimed that the extension of a golf . .
Cited – Godmanchester Town Council, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs CA 19-Dec-2005
The court considered whether a pathway had become a public highway.
Held: ‘The main question for the Court is whether sufficiency of evidence of an intention not to dedicate necessary to satisfy the proviso requires, as a matter of law, that . .
Cited – Godmanchester Town Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs HL 20-Jun-2007
The house was asked about whether continuous use of an apparent right of way by the public would create a public right of way after 20 years, and also whether a non overt act by a landowner was sufficient to prove his intention not to dedicate the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138310

Johnstone v Duke of Buccleuch: HL 25 Jul 1892

In 1810 an unentered proprietor of lands, which he had inherited from an ancestor who was a singular successor of the last-entered vassal, and who held an unconfirmed a me infeftment, by an inter vivos trust-disposition and settlement disponed the lands to trustees, directing them to pay his debts, and annuities to himself and his wife, and to carry out the provisions of his deeds of settlement in favour of his wife, children, or any other person or persons. The trustees were empowered to sell his lands, with his written consent, for payment of debts, and were bound to reconvey the remainder when the debts were paid, or whether paid or not, at Martinmas 1814.
The truster died in 1811. In 1815 the trustees were infeft on a decree of adjudication and implement obtained by them against the truster’s heir, and were entered with the superior as trustees for the uses and purposes of the trust-deed only, by charter of sale, adjudication, and confirmation narrating the grounds of their right, and confirming the dispositions and unconfirmed infeftments since the date of the last vassal’s entry. They paid composition. In 1860 the last surviving trustee reconveyed the remaining lands to the truster’s heir-at-law, who was infeft on the conveyance, and was thereby in 1874 entered with the superior by the operation of the Conveyancing Act 1874, sec. 4. The last surviving trustee died in 1863. The superior demanded a casualty of composition; the vassal tendered relief-duty.
Held (aff. judgment of the Second Division) that the heir was liable in payment of composition in respect that the trustees’ entry did create a new investiture, but even if it did not, the present owner was not the heir of an investiture recognised by the superior, for his ancestor had not been entered, and the superior’s confirmation of the trustees’ title was confined to what was necessary to complete the new investiture, and had no effect in confirming the truster’s infeftment.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor, Lord Watson, Lord Macnaghten, and Lord Hannen

Citations:

[1892] UKHL 915, 29 SLR 915

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.634559

Earl of Kintore and Others v Alexander Pirie and Sons, Ltd: HL 16 Jul 1906

The proprietors of salmon-fishing in the upper reaches of a river are not entitled, as against a lower riparian mill owner, to insist upon having the condition and flow of the river left in their natural state, save in so far as affected by rights acquired by prescription; their right is limited to seeing that there is no obstruction or abstraction of such a character as materially to impede the free passage of salmon.
Question whether, in cases where water is abstracted, it is necessary that at least an equal amount of water to that abstracted be sent down the stream of the river on the ground that salmon always follow the main stream.
‘The effect of forty years’ use of water of a river is to give the person so using right to continue that use, modo et forma, at the place where the use has taken place. It is not to give him a general right to encroach on the common subject, viz., the river, to the gross amount of his prescriptive abstraction.’
Where the proprietors of salmon-fishings in the upper reaches of a river allege obstruction to the passage of salmon up the river on the part of a lower riparian mill owner, interdict at their instance is the appropriate remedy.
Where an interdict had been granted by the Court of Session defining the respective rights of the salmon-fishing proprietors of the upper reaches of a river and a lower riparian mill owner in a question as to obstruction by the latter, the House of Lords in affirming the order added a declaration ‘that in the event of any future substantial change in the river affecting the interests of parties, neither party shall be precluded by anything in the judgments affirmed from applying to the Court of Session in any competent process for remedy.’
In an action of declarator and interdict at the instance of the salmon-fishing proprietors of the upper reaches of a river against a lower riparian mill-owner, with the object of terminating or reducing his abstraction of water, a proof was taken, by which it was established that there was illegal obstruction to the passage of salmon on the part of the mill owner. Thereafter a remit to men of skill was made ‘to report (1) what depth or volume of water, measured by inches or otherwise, flowing over the S. dyke and thence downwards over the W. dyke to the foot of the said W. tail-race, would be in their opinion sufficient to secure the free passage of salmon in said part of the river; and (2) whether any, and if so what, arrangements are possible which would automatically or otherwise insure the observance by the defenders of the limitations attaching, as above expressed’ ( i.e., in previous portion of interlocutor), ‘to their right to abstract water from the river at S. dyke.’ Objection was taken to the remit on the ground that it was submitting to the arbitrament of the men of skill after a proof the whole substance of the case.
Held that the remit was rightly made.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Davey, Lord Robertson, and Lord Atkinson

Citations:

[1906] UKHL 838, 43 SLR 838

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.625466

Solartrack Plc v London Development Agency: UTLC 11 Jan 2010

COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – preliminary issues – freehold interest acquired by agreement in advance of CPO – whether claimant entitled to compensation in respect of underlease – held it was not underlessee – whether Tribunal had power to determine compensation for freehold interest – held it did not since interest transferred at agreed price – whether claimant could claim compensation for disturbance – held that it could

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 242 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.463437

London Development Agency, Re 8-12 New Road: UTLC 10 Jul 2012

COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – shops with residential upper parts – whether losses from assumed redevelopment of part of property as a hotel sustainable as a rule 6 claim with rule 2 value assumed to be zero – alternative value assuming residential redevelopment – whether uplift in value to reflect lack of affordable housing provision – condition of order land at valuation date in no scheme world – loss of rent – holding costs – value for existing retail use of remaining part of property – pre-reference costs – held losses from assumed hotel use cannot be claimed only under rule 6 – no uplift in residential values – loss of rent and holding costs disallowed – compensation determined at pounds 634,751

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 107 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.462570

Bishopsgate Parking (No 2) Ltd and Another v Welsh Ministers: UTLC 3 May 2012

UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – three multi-storey car parks – landlord’s interest – valuation – yield – comparables – whether compensation payable for inability to dispose of acquired land as part of a corporate sale involving a larger portfolio of car parks – whether claimant entitled to compensation for capital gains tax payable on the compensation moneys – whether landlord’s parent company entitled to compensation for additional financing costs arising from the acquisition

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 22 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.460254

Merseyside Police Authority v Liverpool City Council: UTLC 30 Apr 2012

UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – acquisition of land in connection with major city centre regeneration project – valuation – injurious affection to retained land – betterment – Land Compensation Act 1961 section 5, rule (2) and section 7; Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 section 7 – Compensation pounds 746,610

Judges:

Francis FRICS

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 108 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1961 5, Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.460250

10 Minterne Road, Re: UTLC 29 Feb 2012

RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – proposed replacement of single dwelling by three detached houses – benefited land held together with other land – whether consideration of practical benefits under ground (aa) extends to all land owned or just benefited land – whether alternative development not in breach of restriction would proceed if application refused – held restriction secured substantial practical benefits – application refused

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 21 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.452851

King, Re 64 Buxton Road: UTLC 6 Feb 2012

RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – discharge – modification – proposed development of 10 flats to replace single house – whether covenants obsolete – changes to the character of the neighbourhood – whether similar covenants elsewhere on estate no longer enforceable – thin end of the wedge argument – reasonable user – whether public interest in the development proceeding – whether practical benefits of substantial value or advantage – section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 grounds (a), (aa) and (c) – application refused

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 7 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.452855

Kaufman and Another The Borough Council of Gateshead: UTLC 8 Mar 2012

COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – land required for road widening and access to development – the form of planning permission to be assumed on the basis that land allocated in the Development Plan – whether in the alternative land had ransom value – valuation – compensation determined at pounds 650,000 – Land Compensation Act 1961 s.16(3)

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 8 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.452863

Kutchukian v The Free Grammar School of John Lyon: UTLC 1 Mar 2012

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – collective enfranchisement – terms of acquisition – whether restrictive covenant in headlease should be incorporated in transfer – existence of scheme of management – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Schedule 7 para 5 – price to be paid – extent of any enhancement in price attributable to potential for development back to a single house in 2046 – extent of risks regarding ability to obtain vacant possession and carry out such development – how hypothetical purchaser would view such risks – section 61 and Schedule 14 1993 Act

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 53 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.452864

Newbold and Others v The Coal Authority: UTLC 16 Feb 2012

UTLC COMPENSATION – mining subsidence – preliminary issue – damage notices – validity – whether given by owner – whether invalidated through lack of required particulars – held notices valid – Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 s 3, Coal Mining Subsidence (Notices and Claims) Regulations 1991 Sch 1

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 20 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, Coal Mining Subsidence (Notices and Claims) Regulations 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.452858

Clarise Properties Ltd, Re Appeal Against Decision of Leasehold Valuation Tribunal: UTLC 17 Jan 2012

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – dwellinghouse – price – whether correction certificate validly issued – held it had not – whether freehold to be valued in two stages or three – three stage approach held to be appropriate – capitalisation rate for modern ground rent – deferment rate – appeal allowed – price increased to pounds 12,600 – Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (Procedure) (England) Regulations 2003 – Leasehold Reform Act 1967, s9(1)

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 4 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.452848

Khurana and Others v Transport for London: UTLC 29 Nov 2011

UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – retail and office premises – valuation on investment basis – rental values – yield – disturbance – abortive relocation costs – forensic accountancy fees – claimants’ time – compensation andpound;2,200,000 – Land Compensation Act 1961 section 5, rules (2) and (6)

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 466 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1961 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.449726

Phillips and Others, Re: Holiday Chalets At Point Curlew: UTLC 5 Sep 2011

RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – leasehold interest – holiday chalet park – restriction in leases of chalets – use restricted to 10 months of year – chalet lessees seeking modification to permit 12-month use – lessors objecting – application refused – Law of Property Act 1925 s 84(1)(a), (aa) and (c)

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 346 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.445689

Feavearyear v Ipswich Borough Council, Re 94 Foxhall Road: UTLC 8 Sep 2011

COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – dwelling house and garages in poor condition – value – acquiring authority’s valuation based on redevelopment with 6 town houses and local comparables accepted – compensation of pounds 201,500 determined.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 348 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.445685

Persimmon Homes (Midlands) Ltd and Others v Secretary of State for Transport: UTLC 22 Dec 2009

UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – land on edge of village acquired for bypass – planning permission granted for residential development of retained land – whether highway objection to residential development in no-scheme world – whether residential planning permission would have been granted for the acquired land and the retained land in the no-scheme world – whether land possessed hope value and, if so, the degree of hope – cancellation assumption – Spirerose considered – whether compensation to be reduced to reflect betterment – interim decision – Land Compensation Act 1961 ss 2, 6, 9 and 14 – Highways Act 1980 s 261

Judges:

Rose, Trott FFRISC

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 126 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.415050

Scholes v Kirklees Council: UTLC 7 Dec 2009

UTLC COMPENSATION – Land Compensation Act 1973, Part 1- residential dwelling injurious affection – effects of noise, dust, fumes and artificial lighting following construction of a highway improvement scheme – compensation nil

Judges:

Francis FRICS

Citations:

[2009] UKUT B2 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1973

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Damages

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.415051

Haywood and Others v Secretary of State for Transport: UTLC 20 Aug 2010

UTLC COMPULSORY PURCHASE – tubes of subsoil acquired for Channel Tunnel Rail Link – whether compensation payable for leases created after service of notice to treat – value – held nominal amount payable as no market for acquired property – compensation of andpound;50 awarded in each case.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 298 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.425230

Scotia Plastic Binding Ltd v London Development Agency: UTLC 12 Apr 2010

UTLC COMPENSATION – disturbance – warehouse – distribution business displaced from Olympic site – relocation to premises further away from customers – loss of customers – preliminary issue – whether claimant failed unreasonably to mitigate its loss by moving where it did when it did – held claimant had failed to mitigate loss

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 98 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.415017

Cain, Re Waverley Lodge: UTLC 24 Nov 2009

UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS – modification – covenant restricting development to one dwelling per plot – building scheme – proposal to erect two additional dwellinghouses within grounds of existing property – whether restrictions obsolete – whether practical benefits of substantial value or advantage secured by the restrictions – whether proposal would cause injury – application granted and modification ordered – Law of Property Act 1925, section 84(1)(a), (aa) and (c)

Judges:

Francis FTCS

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 212 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.415041

Flowers, Re 30 Burges Road: UTLC 2 Feb 2010

UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – no objections – restriction prohibiting alterations etc without vendor’s approval of plans – whether obsolete – modification sought prohibiting alterations etc not in keeping with neighbourhood – held inappropriate to impose restriction that would present problems with implementation – application refused – Law of Property Act 1925 s 84(1) grounds (a) and (c)

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 23 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.414994

Scott and Others v The Secretary of State for Transport: UTLC 30 Mar 2010

UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – tubes of subsoil acquired for Channel Tunnel Rail Link – determination of compensation where claimants have agreed compensation but not completed conveyance – held nominal amount of andpound;50 payable as no market for acquired property

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 93 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.415009

GR and AL Developments Ltd, Re: UTLC 20 Nov 2009

UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS – modification – covenant restricting development to one dwelling per plot – building scheme – proposal to erect two additional dwellinghouses upon part of the rear gardens of 3 properties – whether practical benefits of substantial value or advantage secured by the restrictions – application refused – Law of Property Act 1925, section 84(1)(aa)

Judges:

Francis FRCIS

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 238 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84(1)(aa)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.415043

Jedynak v Stratford-On-Avon District Council: UTLC 19 Feb 2010

UTLC COMPENSATION – Compulsory purchase of shop and residential accommodation – valuation – basic loss payment – compensation determined at pounds 550,000 – Land Compensation Act 1961 section 5, rule (2)and Land Compensation Act 1973, section 33A

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 46 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1961 5, Land Compensation Act 1973 33A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Damages

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.414995

Azzopardi (T/A Express Homes) and Another v London Development Agency: UTLC 17 Jun 2009

UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase of shop premises – valuation of occupier’s interest – disturbance – Land Compensation Act 1961 Section 5, rules (2), (5) and (6). Compensation determined at andpound;50,282.82

Judges:

Francis FRICS

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 110 (LC), [2010] RVR 112

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1961 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Damages

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.415019

Head v Eastbourne Borough Council: UTLC 22 Dec 2009

UTLC BLIGHT NOTICE – maisonette – blighted land – appropriate authority’s intention not to acquire any part of hereditament – reasonable endeavours to sell – unable to sell unless at substantially reduced price – claimant’s failure to comply with prescribed form – objections not upheld – blight notice valid – Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 151(4)(a), (b) and (g)

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 271 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 151(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.415048

Hutchinson, Re 1 Captains Gorse: UTLC 21 Sep 2009

UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – entitlement to benefit – whether covenant annexed to land – whether land capable of being benefited – whether original covenantee entitled to be heard by virtue of contractual benefit only – admission as objectors refused

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 182 (LC), [2010] 4 EG 114

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.415028

Ridgeland Properties Ltd v Bristol City Council: UTLC 3 Jun 2009

UTLC COMPENSATION – Compulsory purchase – substantial former city-centre office building – development prospects – planning – hope value – costs – residual valuation – alternative schemes – compensation pounds 4,500,000.

Judges:

Francis FRICS

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 102 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.373410

Taff v Highway Agency: UTLC 10 Jul 2009

UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – preliminary issue – valuation of land with lawful use certificates and planning permission – claimant operating without necessary waste management licence – Land Compensation Act 1961, section 5(4 ) – whether any increase in value due to unlawful use that should not be taken into account.

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 128 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1961 5(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Epping Forest District Council v Philcox CA 13-Apr-2000
Where an activity had been continuing without planning permission for 10 years it was no obstacle to obtaining a certificate of lawful use that the activity had been illegal because it had been carried out without a waste management licence. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.373419

Abertawe Bro Morgannwg NHS University Trust v Coedffranc Community Council: UTLC 23 Jun 2009

UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS – discharge or modification – building not to be used for any purpose other than maternal clinic – whether obsolete – whether injury caused to objector – application granted – Law of Property Act 1925 s84(1)(a) and (c).

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 114 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.373406

Hayes, Re 197 Long Lane: UTLC 29 Jun 2009

UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – unopposed application – restriction limiting plot to one dwellinghouse – modified so as to allow for the demolition of the existing property and its replacement with three detached houses and garages – grounds (a), (aa) and (c).

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 115 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.373408

Griffiths v Salford City Council: UTLC 5 Aug 2009

UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – dwelling house in a Regeneration Area valuation – methodology – comparables – Land Compensation Act 1961 section 5, rule (2) compensation determined at pounds 52,000

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 154 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1961 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Damages

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.373423

Horrocks v The Metropolitan Railway Company: 4 Jul 1863

A jury summoned under The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, 8 and 9 Vict. e. 18, S. 68, to assess the compensation due to a claimant for lands, and co, injuriously affected by the works of a public Company, have no jurisdiction to determine whether the lands have been injuriously affected; their jurisdiction is limited to assessing the amount of compensation.

Citations:

[1863] EngR 779, (1863) 4 B and S 315, (1863) 122 ER 477

Links:

Commonlii

Statutes:

Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.283434

Smout v Farquharson: CA 12 Dec 1972

The court considered a case where there was difficulty in deriving the horizontal boundaries of a property.

Citations:

Unreported, 12 December 1972

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Grigsby v Melville CA 6-Jul-1973
The seller had owned two adjoing properties. He sold one off to the plaintiff, describing it in the conveyance as ‘all that dwellinghouse’. A cellar under the part sold off had access only from the retained property, but contained supports for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.244814

Chesterfield Properties Plc v Secretary of State for Environment; Secretary of State for Transport and Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council: Admn 24 Jul 1997

When the Secretary of State was considering need for a compulsory purchase order, he need not formally consider whether it was likely actually to be used for purpose for which it was stated to be required.

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

Times 01-Aug-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 709, (1997) 76 P and CR 117

Links:

Bailii

Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137654

Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v London Rent Assessment Committee Chairman: QBD 25 Feb 2005

The parties agreed in principle that there would be an application for planning permission, and that if granted the land would be bought and the profits shared. Considerable work was undertaken and permission achieved, but the seller then sought to vary the terms of the agreement.
Held: An estoppel had been created against the buyer. The minimum equity to do justice to Mr Cobbe required that he be awarded one-half of the increase in value of the property brought about by the grant of planning permission and that he be granted a lien over the property to secure that interest. He would have been entitled to relief on his constructive trust claim but that relief on the basis of proprietary estoppel was the more satisfactory way of satisfying the equity to which the facts of the case entitled him.

Judges:

Etherton J

Citations:

Unreported, 25 February 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At First Instance – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.276427

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex Parte Bagshaw, Regina v Sane Ex Parte Norton and Bagshaw: QBD 6 May 1994

Mr Bagshaw sought an order modifying the definitive map and statement to show a former mine track as a public right of way.
Held: A claimant seeking to establish a public path had to show evidence in support or that it was reasonable to make the allegation.
Owen J, referring to 53(3)(c)(i) said: ‘It is necessary to give some meaning to all the words used. Accordingly, there must be a difference between showing ‘that a right of way which is not shown in the map and statement subsists’ and showing that a right of way which is not shown in the map and statement ‘is reasonably alleged to subsist’. Accordingly the questions for the council and subsequently for the Secretary of State were: does the evidence produced by the claimant together with all the other evidence available show that either– (a) a right of way subsists? (I shall call this test ‘A’), or (b) it is reasonable to allege that a right of way subsists? (I shall call this test ‘B’). To answer either question must involve some evaluation of the evidence and a judgment upon that evidence. For the first of those possibilities to be answered in the affirmative, it will be necessary to show that on a balance of probabilities the right does exist. For the second possibility to be shown it will be necessary to show that a reasonable person, having considered all the relevant evidence available, could reasonably allege a right of way to subsist.’

Judges:

Owen J

Citations:

Times 06-May-1994, [1994] 68 P and CR 402

Statutes:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 53(3)(c)(I)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Todd, Bradley v The Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Admn 22-Jun-2004
Application was made to quash an order modifying the Council’s definitive map of public rights of way.
Held: Before the Secretary of State could confirm a Council’s modification of a right of way shown on the definitive map, where that . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Wales Ex Parte Emery CA 9-Jul-1997
The applicant had sought to have included in the definitive map, a local footpath, and now challenged refusal to include it.
Held: A public right of way may be created by dedication or it may be deemed after actual use by the public over . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87786

Regina v Braintree District Council ex parte Halls: Admn 2 Jul 1999

Where a local authority had sold a property to a tenant, and the tenant later came back to request the release from one of the covenants given on the sale, the council was free to charge an appropriate sum for that release. It was not a covenant within the deed entitling the council to make a charge, but simply that the covenant restricting the use of the plot to one private dwelling-house was entirely valid.

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

Times 21-Jul-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 626

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 Part V Sch 6 Par 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina v Braintree District Council, ex parte Malcolm William Halls CA 1-Mar-2000
When selling a house to its tenant under the right to buy legislation, the council had imposed a restrictive covenant preventing the new owner developing the land by further building. The purchaser later approached the council for its release so as . .
Cited – Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food HL 14-Feb-1968
Exercise of Ministerial Discretion
The Minister had power to direct an investigation in respect of any complaint as to the operation of any marketing scheme for agricultural produce. Milk producers complained about the price paid by the milk marketing board for their milk when . .
Cited – Congreve v Secretary of State for the Home Office CA 1976
The appellant had bought his television licence when the charge was andpound;12 although the minister had already announced that it would later be increased to andpound;18. The Home Office wrote to those who had purchased their licence before the . .
Cited – Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council HL 17-Dec-1981
Councillors’ Duties replace Election Promises
Bromley complained of a supplementary precept issued by the respondent to implement a commitment, contained in an election manifesto for the election in May 1979, upon which the majority on the GLC had been elected.
Held: In making choices of . .
Cited – Norglen Ltd (In Liquidation) v Reeds Rains Prudential Ltd and Others; Circuit Systems Ltd (In Liquidation) and Another v Zuken-Redac HL 1-Dec-1997
An assignment of a cause of action by a company in liquidation was valid, even though the dominant purpose was to avoid having to give security for costs, and to get legal aid. In dismissing the argument that the transactions were a device to defeat . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Hendricks and Another ChD 3-Nov-1995
The wife was co-owner of the family home. Her husband owed money to the bank. He separated from his wife and left the matrimonial home moving to another house owned by the wife. The bank obtained a charging order absolute against the husband’s . .
Cited – Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service HL 22-Nov-1984
Exercise of Prerogative Power is Reviewable
The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions.
Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Braintree District Council, ex parte Malcolm William Halls CA 1-Mar-2000
When selling a house to its tenant under the right to buy legislation, the council had imposed a restrictive covenant preventing the new owner developing the land by further building. The purchaser later approached the council for its release so as . .
Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 27-May-2011
The respondent had circularised local authorities to say that when assessing future local housing needs a proper material consideration was the proposed Localism Bill which would lead to the replacement of ‘Regional Spatial Strategies’ on which such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Land

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.85140

Regina v Norfolk County Council ex parte Perry: Admn 19 Dec 1996

The period of twenty years required to establish a common under the Act was the period up to the date of the application.

Judges:

Dyson J

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 385, (1996) 74 PandCR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Commons Registration Act 1965

Citing:

Cited – New Windsor Corporation v Mellor CA 1975
The respondent had obtained registration of land, Bachelors’ Acre, a grassed area of land in New Windsor, now used as a car park in the register of town and village greens under the Act as a customary green. It had been used for archery in mediaeval . .
Preferred – Regina v Suffolk County Council Ex Parte Steed and Steed Admn 1995
Judicial review was sought of the Council’s decision to refuse to register a park as a Town or Village Green.
Held: Carnwath J looked at the procedure to be followed by a council receiving an application for registration of commons right: ‘it . .

Cited by:

Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council, Catherine Mary Robinson ChD 22-Jan-2004
Land had been registered in part as a common. The council appealed.
Held: The rights pre-existing the Act had not been lost. The presumption against retrospectively disapplying vested rights applied, and the application had properly been made. . .
Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and others HL 24-May-2006
Application had been made to register as a town or village green an area of land which was largely a boggy marsh. The local authority resisted the application wanting to use the land instead for housing. It then rejected advice it received from a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136933

Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack plc: CA 30 Jul 2001

Where the defendant land-owner was aware of a nuisance on his land, and had both the reasonable opportunity, and the means to abate it, he had a duty to abate the nuisance. It did not matter that the nuisance may have its creation in the acts of others. Here a railway bridge came to house many pigeons, encouraged, perhaps, by some local residents. The Local Authority sought to recover and was granted, the cost of controlling the mess created by the pigeons. They constituted a nuisance, and the cost of resolving the nuisance fell on the respondent land owner.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ, Rougier J

Citations:

Times 02-Aug-2001, Gazette 27-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1236

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack plc QBD 2-Nov-2000
The defendant owned a bridge which attracted large numbers of feral pigeons. Although the owner was not at fault, they were held liable to contribute to the local authority’s costs of steps taken, by surfacing the bridge to deal with the nuisance. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Land

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136156

Jones v Morgan: CA 28 Jun 2001

The claimant appealed against an order refusing him enforcement an agreement for the purchase of a one half share in a property. The judge had found the agreement to be unconscionable.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The judge had wrongly attributed to the claimant an understanding of the amendments to the standard document for which there had been no evidence given. The doctrine that a mortgagee could not extract, under his charge, any collateral contract to purchase or stipulate for an option to purchase, any part of an interest in the mortgaged property, survived in English law but, that doctrine, against allowing anything to act as a clog on the equity of redemption, no longer serves a useful purpose in English law, and would be better if excised.
As to the former rule against a clog on the equity of a redemption, Chadwick LJ summarised the principles: ‘ (i) there is a rule that a mortgagee cannot as a term of the mortgage enter into a contract to purchase, or stipulate for an option to purchase, any part of or interest in the mortgaged property; (ii) the foundation of the rule is that a contract to purchase, or an option to purchase, any part of or interest in the mortgaged property, is repugnant to or inconsistent with the transaction of mortgage of which it forms part, and so must be rejected; (iii) the reason why the contract or option to purchase is repugnant to or inconsistent with the mortgage transaction is that it cannot stand with the contractual proviso for redemption or with the equitable right to redeem – the proviso for redemption (and, where the contractual date for redemption is past, the equitable right to redeem) requires the mortgagee to reconvey the mortgaged property to the mortgagor in the state in which it had been conveyed to him at the time of the mortgage; and (iv) it is essential, in any case to which the rule is said to apply, to consider whether or not the transaction is, in substance, a transaction of mortgage.’
Lord Phillips MR said: ‘the doctrine of a clog on the equity of redemption is, so it seems to me, an appendix to our law which no longer serves a useful purpose and would be better excised.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Pill LJ, Chadwick LJ

Citations:

Times 24-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 995, (2001) 82 P and CR DG20, [2001] NPC 104, [2001] Lloyds Rep Bank 323, [2002] 1 EGLR 125

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pao On and Others v Lau Yiu Long and Others PC 9-Apr-1979
(Hong Kong) The board was asked whether a contract of guarantee had been obtained by duress.
Held: Lord Scarman said: ‘Duress, whatever form it takes, is a coercion of the will so as to vitiate consent. Their Lordships agree with the . .
Cited – Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation HL 1-Apr-1981
A ship belonging to the appellants had been blacked by the defendant union. Negotiations to clear the threat resulted in payment by the appellants to a welfare fund of the defendant. The company sought its refund saying that it had been paid under . .
Cited – G and C Kreglinger v The New Patagonian Meat and Cold Storage Company HL 20-Nov-1913
Mortgagor’s collateral dvantage is not a clog
The appellant woolbrokers had lent the respondent andpound;10,000 with a floating charge over its undertaking. The loan agreement provided that, for five years, the appellants would have first refusal over all sheepskins sold by the company. The . .
Cited – Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv v Burch CA 20-Jun-1996
The defendant had charged her property to secure her employer’s debt. When the bank sought repossession, she said that the charge had been affected by the undue influence and that the terms of the charge were so harsh and inconscionable that a court . .
Cited – CTN Cash and Carry v Gallaher CA 15-Feb-1993
The buyer paid a sum demanded by the seller who threatened otherwise to withdraw the credit facilities it provided to the buyer. The sum was not in fact due, but the demand had been made honestly. The buyer said the agreement was voidable for . .
Cited – Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil Ltd QBD 1983
To establish that a contract was unconscionable, a party had to have made an unconscientious use of its superior position or superior bargaining power to the detriment of someone suffering from some special disability or disadvantage. This weakness . .
Cited – Noakes and Co Ltd v Rice HL 17-Dec-1901
Rule Against Clog on equity of Redemption
A mortgage of a leasehold public house contained a covenant with the mortgagee, a brewery, that the mortgagor and his successors in title would not, during the continuance of the leasehold term and whether or not any money should be owing on the . .
Cited – Reeve v Lisle and others CA 1902
The parties had entered into a series of agreements for loans, and partnerships. The defendants resisted a request by the plaintiff to be allowed, under the agreement, into partnership on a failure to repay the loan.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Reeve v Lisle and others HL 1902
In 1896 the plaintiffs agreed to lend andpound;5,000 to the defendant to be secured by a ship mortgage (executed later), requiring that if at any time during the period of two years the plaintiffs should elect to enter into partnership with the . .
Cited – Bradley v Carritt HL 11-May-1903
Shares in a tea company had been mortgaged to secure a loan from a broker on terms that the mortgagor would seek to ensure that the mortgagee should thereafter have sale of the company’s teas. The mortgage contained a covenant that, if the company . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Equity, Contract, Banking

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136162

Delaware Mansions Limited, Flecksun Limited v The Lord Mayor and Citizens of The City of Westminster: CA 21 Jul 1999

A number of blocks of mansion flats in Maida Vale were damaged by the root action of a plane tree for which the council were responsible. The freehold in the blocks, known as Delaware Mansions, was sold by the Church Commissioners to the second appellants in 1990 for andpound;1. . The flats were subject to long leases and the first appellant company had been formed to act as the maintenance and service company for the tenants, who owned the company. The second appellant company was formed as a wholly owned subsidiary of the first appellant company.
In 1989, there were reports of cracking in parts of the structure of the blocks and engineers were instructed on behalf of the first appellants. The engineers submitted a brief report and this was followed by further investigation. At a time after the second appellants had become freeholders, the appellants’ expert opinion was disclosed to the council. The engineers believed, as the judge put it, that ‘either the tree should be felled or the property should be underpinned’. The cost of remedial work if the tree had been felled was very small and, it is common ground, can be ignored for present purposes. The removal of the tree would have ended the nuisance. Thr court was asked whether the Council was liable in uisance.

Judges:

Beldam, Pill, Thorpe LJJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1903, 68 Con LR 172, (2000) 32 HLR 664, [2000] BLR 1, [1999] 46 EG 194, [1999] 3 EGLR 68

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster HL 25-Oct-2001
The landowner claimed damages for works necessary to remediate damage to his land after encroachment of tree roots onto his property.
Held: The issue had not been properly settled in English law. The problem was to be resolved by applying a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Negligence, Nuisance

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135827

Ronald and John Popely and Another v D G Scott (Kent County Council): Admn 21 Dec 2000

This was an appeal by way of case stated. The appellants were alleged to have offered timeshare contracts without notification of cancellation rights. A director claimed he was unfit to attend, but the trial proceeded in his absence. He had, the day before, attended a conference with counsel.
Held: Given the medical evidence before them, the magistrates should undoubtedly have allowed an adjournment. The schemes had been constructed so that the purchaser bought shares in a company rather than simply a timeshare. However the magistrates were correct to conclude that this was a timeshare agreement dressed as a share agreement. The magistrates had not effectively considered the opinions of counsel obtained by the respondent and which were capable of establishing a due diligence defence.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rose And The Hon Mrs Justice Rafferty

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 441

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Timeshare Act 1992, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 8 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Bolton Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Merna; Regina v Richmond Justices, ex parte Haines 1991
The divisional court should intervene where a defendant has been deprived of a fair opportunity to present his case because of his own unavoidable absence. . .
Cited – Regina v Chippenham Justices ex parte Harris QBD 28-Jan-1994
. .
Cited – Regina v Birmingham City Magistrates’ Court ex parte David Frank Booth Admn 12-May-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Consumer, Land

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135629

Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board Of Finance (No 1): CA 24 Nov 2000

A grant of land was made under the 1841 Act in 1872 (after the 1870 Act) and the school had in 1874 been transferred to a school board under section 23 of the 1870 Act. The school closed permanently in 1992. The issue was whether reverter had occurred in 1874, with the result that the claim of those interested under the reverter had long since become statute barred. The original grant under the 1841 Act followed the National Society standard form.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Latham

Citations:

Times 09-Jan-2001, Gazette 25-Jan-2001, [2001] Ch 669, [2000] EWCA Civ 460

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

School Sites Act 1841

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Disapproved – Marchant and Others v Onslow ChD 12-Nov-1993
School site reverts to original grantors when land is not part of an estate. . .
Appeal from – Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance ChD 22-Feb-2000
Where land had been acquired under the Act on trusts related specifically to the provision of education in accordance with a specified religion, the abandonment by the school of that purpose meant that the land reverted immediately to the original . .
Approved – Habermehl v Attorney General 1996
Land was granted for use as a school for the education of poor persons in accordance with the principles of the National Society. In 1876 the school had become a ‘provided school’ run by a School Board under the Education Act 1870. That meant that, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Rector of Wrington and The Bath and Wells Diocesan Board of Finance v Jenkinson and Others ChD 26-Feb-2002
Land having been conveyed under the Act, and it no longer being needed as a school, it had to be decided to whom the land reverted.
Held: The tracing of beneficiaries had to be in the basis under section 2, that the land had never been so . .
See Also – Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance and Another Chd 14-May-2003
The claimants sought to assert that land acquired under the 1841 Act reverted to them on its ceasing to be used for the purposes of a school. Lewison J summarised the evidence: ‘An analysis of the school registers for 1931 to 1947 shows that the . .
Cited – Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance and others HL 27-Oct-2005
Land had been acquired by a deed under the 1841 Act, but had in 1995 ceased to be used as a school ‘for the education of children and adults of the labouring manufacturing and other poorer classes . . And for no other purpose ‘. Under the Act, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Land, Limitation, Land

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135660

Markfield Investments Ltd v Evans: CA 9 Nov 2000

The claimants were paper owners of land occupied by the defendant. The claimant said the acquiescence had been interrupted by an abortive court action by the claimant’s predecessor in title.
Held: With regard to any particular action the relevant time, and the only relevant time, for consideration of adverse possession is that which has expired before such action is brought. A letter and separate action could not found a claim. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Latham

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 281, [2001] 1 WLR 1321

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mount Carmel Investments Limited v Peter Thurlow Limited CA 1988
The court considered a defence to an assertion of adverse possession, that the plaintiff had given notice of his intention to recover the land: ‘no one, either lawyer or non-lawyer, would think that a householder ceases to be in possession of his . .
Cited – St Marylebone Property Co Ltd v Fairweather HL 16-Apr-1962
To defeat a defence of adverse possession, the plaintiff must succeed in an action which itself had been commenced within the twelve year period. A squatter does not succeed to the title that he has disturbed: by sufficiently long adverse possession . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ofulue and Another v Bossert CA 29-Jan-2008
The claimants appealed an order finding that the defendant had acquired their land by adverse possession. They said that the defendant had asserted in defence to possession proceedings that they were tenants, and that this contradicted an intent to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135672

J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v Caroline Graham and Another: CA 6 Feb 2001

Where a tenant under a grazing license had stayed over after the end of the tenancy, and had been refused a renewed licence, and had continued to graze the land for over twelve years, the mere overstaying was not enough to evidence an animus possidendi, an intention to assert an interest contrary to that of the owner. The original relationship had envisaged continued use until the land would receive planning permission. The claim for possession by the original owners succeeded.
Mummery LJ said that Article 1 did not impinge on the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act 1980, which did not deprive a person of his possessions or interfere with his peaceful enjoyment of them but only deprived a person of his right of access to the courts for the purpose of recovering property if he had delayed the institution of his legal proceedings for 12 years or more after being dispossessed by another. The extinction of the applicants’ title was not a deprivation of possessions nor a confiscatory measure for which payment of compensation would be appropriate, but a logical and pragmatic consequence of the barring of the right to bring an action after the expiration of the limitation period. Any deprivation was justified in the public interest, the conditions laid down in the 1980 Act being reasonably required to avoid the risk of injustice in the adjudication of stale claims and as ensuring certainty of title: those conditions were not disproportionate, the period of 12 years being reasonable and not imposing an excessively difficult burden on the landowner.
Lord Justice Keene started from the assumption that limitation periods were in principle not incompatible with the Convention and that the process whereby a person would be barred from enforcing rights by the passage of time was clearly acknowledged by the Convention. This position obtained, in his view, even though limitation periods both limited the right of access to the courts and in some circumstances had the effect of depriving persons of property rights, whether real or personal, or of damages: there was thus nothing inherently incompatible as between the 1980 Act and Article 1 of the Protocol.

Judges:

Mummery, Keene LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

Gazette 22-Feb-2001, Times 13-Feb-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 117, [2001] Ch 804, [2001] 2 WLR 1293, (2001) 82 P and CR DG1, [2001] 18 EG 176, [2001] 2 EGLR 69, (2001) 82 P and CR 23, [2001] HRLR 27, [2001] 7 EGCS 161, [2001] NPC 29

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 15 38 Sch 8 paras 1 and 8, European Convention on Human Rights 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – J A Pye and Another v Graham and Another ChD 14-Mar-2000
The fact alone of being prepared to take a licence of land would not defeat an application for adverse possession, but a request for a licence would be relevant. The adverse possession commenced from the time when the licence expired, given that a . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
Cited – Malekshad v Howard De Walden Estates Limited CA 23-May-2001
The applicant sought the leasehold enfranchisement of two leasehold properties. They were contained in separate leases, but the property had been treated as one for some time. A part of one property extended under part of the other. The claim was . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v Graham and Another CA 6-Feb-2001
Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused. . .
At Court of Appeal – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
Cited – Mann Aviation Group (Engineering) Ltd v Longmint Aviation Ltd and Another ChD 19-Aug-2011
Administrators of the claimant company asserted that the company had held informal leases of two hangars owned by the defendant, and also complained of their transfer at an undervalue. The first defendant said that the occupations were under license . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation, Human Rights

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135590

Rodway v Landy: CA 4 Apr 2001

Two doctors in partnership held and occupied premises under a trust of land. After the break up of the partnership and practice into two, they sought to decide what was to happen to the premises. Rules would prevent the sale of the property. The building leant itself to a division under which one party could practice from one part, and the other from the other. The judge ordered accordingly, with additional conditions. On appeal the court confirmed the order. The Act allowed the trustees to restrict occupation of some parts of the land subject to the trust, by one or more beneficiaries. The court could also order the beneficiaries to contribute to the costs of the adaptation.

Citations:

Times 18-Apr-2001, Gazette 01-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 471

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 13(1) 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Trusts, Land

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135512

Dear v Reeves: CA 1 Mar 2001

A right of pre-emption granted over land was property. It had value and was capable of assignment, and was therefore a chose in action. As such it was vested the trustee in bankruptcy on the insolvency of the owner of the right. It may be difficult to value, and might not become exercisable, but it remained property.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 277

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 436

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Insolvency

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135547

Trevelyan (On Behalf Of Himself and The Ramblers Association) v The Secretary of State for The Environment, Transport and The Regions: CA 23 Feb 2001

An inspector, determining an application to remove a public bridleway from the definitive map, and where there was evidence only of use by foot, was right to start from the presumption that, if a right of way was shown on the definitive map, it was correctly registered. Nevertheless, where there had been no evidence to support the registration, it could be treated as registered in error. Correction of the register was possible by ordering deletion of the bridleway, subject to substitution by a footpath.

Judges:

Lord Phillips MR, Simon Brown LJ, Longmore LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 266, [2001] 2 PLR 45, [2001] 1 WLR 1264, [2001] NPC 41, [2001] 3 All ER 166

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 53 Sch 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – John Trevelyan (Suing on Behalf of Himself and All Other Members of Ramblers Association) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions Admn 24-Jan-2000
An inspector determining an application to remove a public bridleway from the definitive map, where there was evidence only of use by foot, was right to start from the presumption that, if a right of way was shown on the definitive map, it was . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – John Trevelyan (Suing on Behalf of Himself and All Other Members of Ramblers Association) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions Admn 24-Jan-2000
An inspector determining an application to remove a public bridleway from the definitive map, where there was evidence only of use by foot, was right to start from the presumption that, if a right of way was shown on the definitive map, it was . .
Cited – Ernstbrunner v Manchester City Council and Another Admn 16-Dec-2009
The appellant challenged by case stated a refusal of the Crown Court to order removal of a gate which he said obstructed a public footpath. The land-owner had persuaded the magistrates that the gate was not on the line of the footpath. The claimant . .
Cited – Kotarski and Another v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 13-May-2010
The applicant sought to challenge an enquiry resulting in the confirmation of of a public right of way across his land. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135554

Palliser v Revenue and Customs Re Wedderburn Road: UTLC 16 Mar 2018

Inheritance Tax – valuation under s160 Inheritance Tax Act 1984 – maisonette – whether hope value for extension to be taken into account – analysis of comparables – value of appellant’s undivided share determined at pounds 1,603,930 – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 71 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Inheritance Tax Act 1984 160

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Inheritance Tax

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.606889

In Re Section 14, (D) of The Land Compensation Act 1961: UTLC 8 Mar 2018

COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – preliminary issue – ransom value – scheme highway – whether section 14(5)(d) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 engaged so as to prevent the assumption of planning permission – determined not so engaged

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 62 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1961

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.606887

Johnston v O’Neill: HL 14 Jul 1911

An exclusive right was claimed to the eel-fishing over the whole of Lough Neagh, a large navigable non-tidal inland lough in Ireland by the holders of a long lease, who were in right of a title to the fishings conferred by the Crown in 1661. The title of the Crown had been previously affirmed in certain inquisitions. The claimants and their authors produced some leases of the fishings in the lough, and proved occasional payments made in respect thereof at various dates since the date of the Crown grant. It was proved in defence, and not disputed, that the public had for centuries fished for eels habitually and continuously in the lough as of right. Judgment in favour of the lessees was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Ireland (Sir S. Walker, L.C., Fitzgibbon and Holmes, L.JJ). The defendants appealed.
Held: Held that the public cannot prescribe a right of fishing in inland non-tidal waters, and ( diss. the Lord Chancellor, Lords Shaw and Robson) that the claimants had sufficiently established their title to the exclusive enjoyment of the fishings notwithstanding the continuous practice of fishing by the public.
Per Lord Macnaghten-‘The Crown is not of common right entitled to the soil or waters of an inland non-tidal lake. No right can exist in the public to fish in the waters of an inland non-tidal lake.’
Per Lord Dunedin-‘The public cannot have a right to the fishing in question. The Crown may have had a right to it when it granted the patent. The only competitor to the Crown and its patentee must be some other private owner or owners, corporation or quasi-corporation.’

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lords Ashbourne, Macnaghten, Dunedin, Shaw, and Robson

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 638

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Agriculture

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.619210

Drummond and Another v Bastow and Others Re Cedar Lawn: UTLC 9 Mar 2018

Restrictive Covenant – Modification : Costs – – garden land with planning consent for additional residential dwelling – restriction preventing construction of more than one house per plot – building scheme – whether covenant secures practical benefits of substantial value or advantage – held it did not – exercise of discretion – application under ground (aa) allowed – Law of Property Act 1925 s.84(1)(aa)

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 8 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84(1)(aa)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.606886

Holden, Re Ash Lodge: UTLC 19 Jan 2018

UTLC Restrictive Covenant – Discharge – residential garage converted and used as a dog-grooming parlour – restrictions preventing business use and advertising – whether restrictions obsolete – whether any injury to beneficiaries – Tribunal’s discretion to order modification with conditions – s84, Law of Property Act 1925

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 21 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.603251

Chand v Calmore Area Housing Association Ltd: LT 25 Jul 2008

LT LANDLORD AND TENANT- Service Charges – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as amended ss 18 and 19 – Housing Act 1988 ss 13 and 14 – Assured non-shorthold periodic tenancy -whether the landlord’s ability (subject to any reference to a Rent Assessment Committee) to serve a yearly notice of increase of rent (which included a service charge) brought the payments for services within s.18(1) of the 1985 Act.

Citations:

[2008] EWLands LRX – 170 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.278606

Applegarth v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions: Admn 28 Jun 2001

The landowner challenged an order under the 1981 Act.
Held: the inspector’s decision was upheld.
However, a different inspector at an earlier inquiry had concluded that the modifying order should not be confirmed. That decision had been challenged by the county council before Carnwath J who had made an order by consent quashing the decision so that the question of confirmation of the order therefore fell to be redetermined by the Secretary of State. The objector and the county council had agreed to proceed before the second inspector by way of written representations rather than by public inquiry. Munby J referred to the relief which he had jurisdiction to grant. He said: ‘I should make clear the nature of the court’s function. [The objector] does not have a right to ‘appeal’ to the High Court. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 15 to the 1981 Act gives him, as a ‘person aggrieved’ a right to ‘make an application to the High Court’. The effect of paragraphs 12(2) and 12(3) is that I cannot interfere, whatever my own view of the merits of [the objector’s] contentions might be, unless I am ‘satisfied’ either (i) that the modification order made by [the council] on x. is not within the powers of sections 53 and 54 of the Act or (ii) that [the objector’s] interests have been ‘substantially prejudiced’ by a failure to comply with the requirements of Schedule 15. Even if I am so satisfied my only power is to ‘quash’ the modification order in whole or part. It follows that I have no power to grant [the objector] any declaration or other relief.’

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 487

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jones v Welsh Assembly Government Admn 15-Dec-2008
The County Council had made an order under section 53, establishing a footpath over the claimant’s land. The land owner now appealed. The court had previously quashed the inspector’s decision on the basis that he had not allowed for the interruption . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.140340

Rowley and Another v Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions: Admn 24 May 2002

The inspector after holding an inquiry had confirmed the decision of the county council to make an order modifying the definitive map by the inclusion of a footpath over the objectors’ land.
Held: The decision by the Secretary of State (through the inspector) to confirm the county council’s order was made contrary to law. He quashed the confirmation of the order ‘with the consequence that the modification of the definitive plan and statement resulting from that confirmation shall not take effect.’

Judges:

Elias J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1040 (Admin), [2003] 2 PandCR 27

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hicks Developments Ltd v Chaplin and others ChD 5-Feb-2007
The defendants had succeeded in an application before the Land Registry adjudicator for a strip of land adjoining their property to be registered in their name after a finding that they had successfully established a claim by adverse possession. The . .
Cited – Jones v Welsh Assembly Government Admn 15-Dec-2008
The County Council had made an order under section 53, establishing a footpath over the claimant’s land. The land owner now appealed. The court had previously quashed the inspector’s decision on the basis that he had not allowed for the interruption . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.172262

Woolls v Powling: CA 9 Mar 1999

A plan attached to a conveyance for identification purposes only’ could still be used, when clear, to determine just where the boundary lay. If the transfer is clear, extrinsic evidence cannot be used to clarify the precise boundary.
The combined expressions used in a conveyance to import a plan ‘for identification purposes only’ and ‘more particularly identified on’ were used. The judge had admitted extrinsic evidence, that is oral evidence, as to discussions between the parties regarding the boundary wall prior to the conveyance.
Held: the appeal was allowed. The plan did not conflict with the description of the property in the conveyance and so the judge had been in error in admitting this extrinsic evidence.

Citations:

Times 09-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 751

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Grigsby v Melville CA 6-Jul-1973
The seller had owned two adjoing properties. He sold one off to the plaintiff, describing it in the conveyance as ‘all that dwellinghouse’. A cellar under the part sold off had access only from the retained property, but contained supports for the . .
Cited – Scarfe v Adams CA 1981
Transfer deeds for a sale of land did not define the boundary but referred to a plan which was held to be too small to show a precise boundary. The only other element of the parcels clause was that it was land adjoining Pyle Manor and that it was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Pennock and Another v Hodgson CA 27-Jul-2010
In a boundary dispute, the judge had found a boundary, locating it by reference to physical features not mentioned in the unambigous conveyance.
Held: The judge had reiterated but not relied upon the statement as to the subjective views of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90598

United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib and Others: CA 2 Feb 1996

The bank appealed against a decision that the simple deposit of deeds with a bank did not take effect as an equitable charge.
Held: Depositing deeds with a bank is not sufficient to create a charge over them. The old law as to the creation of an equitable mortgage by deposit of deeds had been akin to part performance, and was therefore equally inconsistent with the philosophy of the 1989 Act. The rule was in essence that the deposit implied that contract had been created: ‘The deposit by way of security is treated both as prima facie evidence of a contract to mortgage, and as part performance of that contract.’ Phillips LJ said: ‘The clear intent of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 is to introduce certainty in relation to contracts for the disposition of interests in land where uncertainty existed before. Section 2(5) contains a list of contracts expressly excluded from the operation of the section. I can see no basis for implying a further exclusion in respect of contracts for the grant of a mortgage which are secured by a deposit of title deeds.’

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Leggatt, Phillips LJJ

Citations:

Times 13-Feb-1996, [1997] Ch 107, [1996] EWCA Civ 1308, [1996] 3 WLR 372, [1996] 3 All ER 215

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2, Statute of Frauds 1677 4, Law of Property Act 1925 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib and Others ChD 24-Jun-1994
The customer had deposited title deeds with the bank as security for a loan, but no deed of charge had been executed.
Held: The mere deposit of title deeds does not create an equitable charge without more. The 1989 Act operated as a statutory . .
Cited – Dearle v Hall 1828
. .
Cited – Russel v Russel 16-May-1783
. .
Cited – Russel v Russel 16-May-1783
. .
Cited – In Re Wallis and Simmonds (Builders) Ltd ChD 1974
The deposit of title documents, without more, gives rise to an inference that the deposit was intended by the parties to operate as creating an equitable charge or mortgage over the property whose title document is deposited. In logic there could be . .
Cited – Steadman v Steadman HL 1976
A mere payment of a sum of money might amount to an act of part performance, as might the act of a purchaser instructing solicitors to prepare and submit a draft conveyance or transfer, so as to leave asituation capable of enforcement in equity. . .
Cited – In Re Alton Corporation 1985
Sir Robert Megarry V-C, said in relation to a loan accompanied by the deposit of title deeds: ‘I have to remember that the basis of an equitable mortgage is the making of an agreement to create a mortgage, with the deposit of the land certificate . .
Cited – Maddison v Alderson HL 1883
The requirement of the doctrine of part performance is that the acts of part performance relied upon must be ‘referable’ to the contract sued on. The principle underlying the doctrine of part performance was expressed by Lord Selborne: ‘In a suit . .
Cited – In Re Beetham, Ex parte Broderick QBD 1886
The Court considered whether certain facts were sufficient to establish an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Cave J said: ‘The law on the subject . . forms a branch of the equitable doctrine of the specific performance of oral contracts . .
Cited – E R Ives Investments Ltd v High CA 14-Dec-1966
One exception to the requirement that an easement must be granted by a deed is that if permission to enjoy a right, capable of constituting an easement, is given by the landowner in terms likely to lead, and that do lead, the beneficiary of the . .
Cited – Hodgson v Marks CA 12-Mar-1971
The plaintiff had transferred her house to her lodger, expressing it to be for her love and affection for him. The judge at first instance had held that the true intention of the plaintiff had been that she would continue to live there as before and . .
Cited – White and others v Vandervell Trustees Ltd. (No. 2), Re Vandervell’s Trusts (No 2) CA 3-Jul-1974
Lord Denning MR described the modern practice concerning pleadings: ‘It is sufficient for the pleader to state the material facts. He need not state the legal result. If, for convenience, he does so, he is not bound by, or limited to, what he has . .
Cited – Spiro v Glencrown Properties Ltd and Another ChD 1991
The court considered the nature of an option to buy land. Hoffman J said: ‘The granting of the option imposes no obligation upon the purchaser and an obligation upon the vendor which is contingent upon the exercise of the option. When the option is . .
Cited – Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold (2) CA 25-Feb-1988
Various leases of properties had been granted. Legal and General occupied the property under an arrangement under which they paid no rent. The landlord sought possession, saying that the agreements were licences not tenancies because of the absence . .

Cited by:

Cited – Yaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
Cited – Jones and Another v Forest Fencing Limited CA 21-Nov-2001
The sellers of and disputed an order as to whether electrical equipment at the site hd been included in the contract.
Held: ‘the answer to the question ‘what meaning should be given to the words used in the memorandum’ cannot, I think, be a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Banking

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90067

Secured Residential Funding plc v Douglas Goldberg Hendeles and Co (a Firm): CA 19 Apr 2000

Two linked companies were in business from the same premises lending money on mortgage. A loan from one company was made but supported only by documentation in the name of the other. The error was noticed, but new documents not prepared until after completion. In possession proceedings, the lender had to show that the money had been advanced by its associate as its agent. The operative date was the date on which the mortgage advance was made, not on completion.

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-2000, Gazette 25-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 144

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Agency, Land, Legal Professions

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89148

Selby District Council v Samuel Smith Old Brewery Ltd: CA 15 Jun 2000

The council conveyed land to the brewery, with an option to re-purchase it. On exercising the option, the brewery asserted rights over the land, by way of easement acquired during its ownership. These were rejected by the court. The intention of the option, was that the land should be reconveyed in the same condition. The Law Society contract condition was not intended to disregard any connection between the fictional and actual conveyance, which in any event were to be deemed to have occurred on the same day. The court had regard to the circumstances existing at the time of the bargain to infer the common intention that the parties were to be restored to their previous positions, and accordingly held that the rights reserved were only the established easements at the date of the grant.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jun-2000, (2000) 80 P and CR 466, [2000] EWCA Civ 182

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – P and S Platt Ltd v Crouch and Another CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant sought a declaration that certain easements had been included by implication in a conveyance of part of land to him.
Held: Since the easements were capable of subsisting at law, and existed as quasi-easements at the time, and did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89163

Solartrack Plc v London Development Agency: UTLC 26 Jul 2012

COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – disturbance – claim for temporary loss of profits, extinguishment of goodwill and consequential losses – whether compensation to be based on extinguishment or cost of notional relocation – whether claimant company would have been profitable in absence of CPO and if so to what extent – compensation awarded pounds 72,500.

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 158 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.463434

Coudrier and Others v Secretary of State for Transport: UTLC 1 Apr 2010

COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – tubes of subsoil acquired for Channel Tunnel Rail Link – determination of compensation where no communication possible with claimants or where claimants have agreed compensation but not completed conveyance – held nominal amount of pounds 50 payable as no market for acquired property

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 92 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.415013

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Burrows and Simms: CA 1990

The conclusive character of the definitive map and statement is not intended to preclude the duty of the local authority to modify them where proper. If evidence came to light to show that a mistake had been made in drawing up the definitive map, then such a mistake could be corrected in either of the three ways envisaged in Section 53(3)(c) of the 1981 Act. The objective of these provisions was to ensure that the definitive map provided as accurate a picture as possible of the relevant rights of way.
Purchas LJ said: ‘It would, in my judgment, be strange indeed if the detailed and extensive provisions of section 53 were to be inhibited in important or material respects from achieving an accurate up-to-date record. This would be particularly so if, notwithstanding the discovery of new evidence, an error which had been detected on the definitive map or in the statement would nevertheless be perpetuated.’
He sought to reconcile sections 53 and 56, saying that section 56 applies generally, but not such as to inhibit a review under section 53: ‘There is no difficulty in reconciling sections 53 and 56 of the Act 1981 once the comparatively restricted purpose of the legislation as a whole is understood, namely the preparation and maintenance of an authoritative record in the form of a definitive map and statement . . Parliament never removed the duty to revise and keep the record up to date so that not only changes caused by supervening events . . These should be taken into account in order to produce the most reliable evidence that can be achieved.’
Glidewell LJ said: ‘There are two alternative ways in which the deletion and downgrading provisions in section 53(3) may be reconciled with the provisions of section 56. The first is that adopted by Taylor J in Rubinstein’s case, 57 P and CR 111, namely by treating section 56 as pre-eminent and as limiting the operation of section 53(3). The alternative course is to interpret section 56 as not applying to the review process in section 53 at all so that the review starts from what is shown in the definitive map, but does not for its purposes treat the definitive map as conclusive. For all other purposes within the limits laid down by section 56(1) the definitive map is conclusive. In particular it is conclusive evidence in any dispute that may arise between a landowner . . and . .[users] . .’

Judges:

Glidewell LJ, Purchas LJ

Citations:

[1991] 2 QB 354, [1990] 3 All ER 490

Statutes:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 56

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Overruled – Rubinstein v Secretary of State for the Environment 1987
Because of the conclusive nature of inclusion of a right of way on the definitive map as at the relevant date, Section 53(3)(c)(iii) could only involve consideration of evidence relating to matters after the relevant date, for example the physical . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kotarski and Another v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 13-May-2010
The applicant sought to challenge an enquiry resulting in the confirmation of of a public right of way across his land. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.392870

Fisher v Walker, Cooper v Walker: 16 Jun 1862

The defendant occupied a house adjoining to a public street, with a cellar belonging to it, which cellar had existed before the defendant had anything in the house, The mouth of this cellar opened into the footway of the street by a trap door. During the day this trap door was open, but at night it was closed by a flap, which slightly projected above the footway, and it had so projected as long as living memory went back, The plaintiff, coming along the footway at night, stumbled over this flap, fell, and sustained injury, for which he brought an action.
Held: that the jury ought to draw the conclusion that the cellar flap had existed as long as the street, and that the dedication of the way to the public was with the cellar flap in it, and subject to its being continued there; and, therefore, that the defendant was not liable, as the maintenance of such an ancient cellar flap was not unlawful.

Citations:

[1862] EngR 814 (A), (1862) 2 B and S 770

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.286980