Category: Land

Duffield v Elwes: 1 Jun 1826

[1826] EngR 967, (1826) 2 Sim and St 544, (1826) 57 ER 454
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Duffield v Elwes 12-Jun-1823
Land subject to mortgage – possible gift donatio mortis causa? . .
See Also – Thomas Duffield, Esq And Emily Frances His Wife v Amelia Maria Elwes, Widow, Francis Const And George Law, Abraham Henry Chambers, The Rev William Hicks, Clerk and Others 1825
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Thomas Duffield, And Emily Frances His Wife v Elwes, Chambers, Hicks And others PC 1827
. .
See Also – Thomas Duffield, And Emily Francis His Wife, Plaintiffs In The Court Of Chancery v Amelia Maria Elwes, Francis Const, George Law, Abraham Henry Chambers, William Hicks, George Thomas Warren Hastings Duffield, Caroline Duffield, Maria Duffield, Anna Duff PC 1829
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Land

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.325731

Williams v Parmar and Others: UTLC 6 Oct 2021

HOUSING – RENT REPAYMENT ORDER – Housing and Planning Act 2016 ss.40-46 – offence of managing unlicensed house in multiple occupation – amount of rent repayment orders – identification of relevant period specified in s.44(2) – approach to exercise of discretion on amount of RRO relating to the rent paid during the relevant period

[2021] UKUT 244 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.669250

Watcham v Attorney-General of the East Africa Protectorate: PC 1919

The Watchams held land along the bank of the Nairobi River. It had been conveyed to them by the Crown by a certificate under the East African Land Regulations. The certificate gave the area transferred as ’66 3/4 acres, or thereabouts’, but included a description by reference to physical features on the ground which would have resulted in an area of 160 acres. There was evidence that the Watcham family had never occupied the more extensive area, part of which had been occupied without objection from them by someone else.
Held: The evidence was admissible as an aid to construction, to show that the description in the certificate must be ‘falsa demonstratio’. In a conveyancing matter, it may be possible to take into account the subsequent behaviour of the parties to interpret what was intended by the conveyance.

[1919] AC 533
Commonwealth
Cited by:
Doubted – F L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tools Sales Limited HL 4-Apr-1973
The parties entered an agreement to distribute and sell goods in the UK. They disagreed as to the meaning of a term governing the termination of the distributorship.
Held: The court can not take into account the post-contractual conduct or . .
Cited – Tower Hamlets v Barrett and Another CA 19-Jul-2005
The defendant tenants appealed an order for them to surrender possession of land which they claimed had been acquired by adverse possession. The buildings, including one which shared a party wall with the building owned by the defendants had been . .
Applied – Neilson v Poole ChD 1969
Significance of Boundary agreements
The parties, neighbours, disputed the boundary between their gardens. In a conveyance of land where the plan is stated to be for identification purposes only, the effect of those words: ‘Seems . . to confine the use of the plan to ascertaining where . .
Supported – Ali v Lane and Another CA 21-Nov-2006
The parties disputed the boundary between their neighbouring plots of land.
Held: In the modern law the conveyance (parchment or not) is undoubtedly the starting point. Where information contained in the conveyance is unclear or ambiguous, it . .
Doubted – Sussex Caravan Parks Ltd v Richardson CA 1961
Harman LJ described the Watcham case: ‘a case which has been long under suspicion of the gravest kind from real property lawyers.’ . .
Doubted – Wickham Tools v Schuler AG HL 1974
Lord Wilberforce referred to the Watcham case as: ‘a precedent which I had thought had long been recognised to be nothing but the refuge of the desperate.’ but ‘Whether in its own field, namely that of interpretation of deeds relating to real . .
Not Followed – Beale v Harvey CA 28-Nov-2003
Land had been divided into three lots on its development, but the site plan did not match the line of a fence actually erected.
Held: The court was not bound by the Watcham case, and would not follow it to allow reference to the later . .
Cited – Piper and Another v Wakeford and Another CA 17-Dec-2008
The parties disputed the boundary between their land.
Held: The judge had been entitled to rely on the evidence he had accepted, and had been entitled to find on the factual basis asserted. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.228940

Bradford and Another v James and others: CA 18 Jul 2008

Boundary dispute.

Mummery LJ, Jacob LJ, Wilson LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 837, [2008] BLR 538, [2008] NPC 87
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Followed – Ali v Lane and Another CA 21-Nov-2006
The parties disputed the boundary between their neighbouring plots of land.
Held: In the modern law the conveyance (parchment or not) is undoubtedly the starting point. Where information contained in the conveyance is unclear or ambiguous, it . .

Cited by:
Cited – Piper and Another v Wakeford and Another CA 17-Dec-2008
The parties disputed the boundary between their land.
Held: The judge had been entitled to rely on the evidence he had accepted, and had been entitled to find on the factual basis asserted. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.270887

Haycocks and Another v Neville and Another: CA 18 Jan 2007

[2007] EWCA Civ 78, [2007] 1 EGLR 78
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Followed – Ali v Lane and Another CA 21-Nov-2006
The parties disputed the boundary between their neighbouring plots of land.
Held: In the modern law the conveyance (parchment or not) is undoubtedly the starting point. Where information contained in the conveyance is unclear or ambiguous, it . .

Cited by:
Cited – Piper and Another v Wakeford and Another CA 17-Dec-2008
The parties disputed the boundary between their land.
Held: The judge had been entitled to rely on the evidence he had accepted, and had been entitled to find on the factual basis asserted. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.248985

Beale v Harvey: CA 28 Nov 2003

Land had been divided into three lots on its development, but the site plan did not match the line of a fence actually erected.
Held: The court was not bound by the Watcham case, and would not follow it to allow reference to the later behaviour of parties in interpreting a deed. The court related the conveyance plan to the features on the ground and concluded that, on the facts, the dominant description of the boundary of the property conveyed was red edging in a single straight line on the plan.
The judge had been incorrect in not allowing the defendant to plead an estoppel. However there had been insufficient detriment suffered to establish an estoppel, and the defence failed. The appeal was dismissed.

Peter Gibson LJ
[2003] EWCA Civ 1883, [2004] 2 PandCR 18
Bailii
Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lyle v Richards HL 1866
A lease described the southern boundary of the premises as ‘a straight line of about 355 fathoms from John Vincent’s house . . to a bound-stone’, which was then described, the demised premises being ‘particularly delineated by the map’, that map . .
Cited – Eastwood v Ashton HL 1915
Toi Identify Land, Court to Find True Meaning
A contract described the property and referred to a plan attached. The conveyance used four indications: the farm sold was said to be called by a given name, to contain 84 acres odd ‘or thereabouts’, and to be in the occupation of two different . .
Cited – Wickham Tools v Schuler AG HL 1974
Lord Wilberforce referred to the Watcham case as: ‘a precedent which I had thought had long been recognised to be nothing but the refuge of the desperate.’ but ‘Whether in its own field, namely that of interpretation of deeds relating to real . .
Not Followed – Watcham v Attorney-General of the East Africa Protectorate PC 1919
The Watchams held land along the bank of the Nairobi River. It had been conveyed to them by the Crown by a certificate under the East African Land Regulations. The certificate gave the area transferred as ’66 3/4 acres, or thereabouts’, but included . .
Cited – AJ Dunning and Sons (Shopfitters) Ltd v Sykes and Son (Poole) Ltd CA 1987
A transfer of part of land identified the land by reference to a red line on a plan being part of a registered. The court held that the seller’s covenants of title implied under the rules took effect subject to the interests of the registerd owners . .
Cited – Sussex Caravan Parks Ltd v Richardson CA 1961
Harman LJ described the Watcham case: ‘a case which has been long under suspicion of the gravest kind from real property lawyers.’ . .
Cited – Jennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA 22-Feb-2002
The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . .
Cited – Gillett v Holt and Another CA 23-Mar-2000
Repeated Assurances Created Equitable Estoppel
Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
Cited – Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd v James Miller and Partners Ltd HL 1970
The parties disagreed as to the curial law of an arbitration agreement. The proper law of the building contract and the arbitration agreement was English but the reference was conducted in Scotland.
Held: Evidence of behaviour after a contract . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ali v Lane and Another CA 21-Nov-2006
The parties disputed the boundary between their neighbouring plots of land.
Held: In the modern law the conveyance (parchment or not) is undoubtedly the starting point. Where information contained in the conveyance is unclear or ambiguous, it . .
Cited – Piper and Another v Wakeford and Another CA 17-Dec-2008
The parties disputed the boundary between their land.
Held: The judge had been entitled to rely on the evidence he had accepted, and had been entitled to find on the factual basis asserted. . .
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 . .
Cited – Dixon and Another v Hodgson and Others CA 20-Dec-2011
The parties were in a boundary dispute. The court warned of the danger of deciding where a boundary is by simply relying on the physical appearance of the ground features to the neglect or exclusion of the title documents. The Recorder had found . .
Cited – Cameron v Boggiano and Another CA 21-Feb-2012
The parties disputed the boundary between their neighbouring properties. . .
Cited – Taylor v Lambert and Another CA 18-Jan-2012
The court heard an appeal against a judgment in a boundary dispute, the losing party having latterly dicovered aerial photopgraphs. There appeared to be a difference between the total area as specified in a 1974 conveyance off of part and the area . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Registered Land, Estoppel

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.191206

Halifax Building Society v Clark: ChD 1973

In order to satisfy the requirements for obtaining statutory relief under the 1970 Act, the mortgagor had to be able to show that he was likely to be able to pay within the reasonable period referred to not only the arrears of instalments but also the principal sum due under the mortgage. Sir John Pennycuick V-C interpreted ‘any sums due under the mortgage’ in sub-section (1) restrictively as the entire mortgage debt.

Sir John Pennycuick V-C
[1973] Ch 307
Administration of Justice Act 1970 36(1)
England and Wales

Land, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.460847

British Waterways Board v London Power Networks Plc, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: ChD 15 Nov 2002

The landowner objected to the proposal of the second respondent to grant, in favour of the first respondent, a wayleave to lay cables through tunnels owned by the claimant landowner.
Held: The tunnel structure was properly seen as land within the Act, and the way-leaves were properly granted. The argument that the meaning of the word ‘land’ must be restricted so as to avoid bizarre conclusions did not work. The right granted applied to all the subsections, or to none of them. Wayleaves through structures on or under land did not differ.

The Vice-Chancellor
Times 21-Nov-2002, Gazette 30-Jan-2003, [2002] EWHC 2417 (Ch)
Bailii
Electricity Act 1989 Sch 4 para 6
England and Wales

Utilities, Land

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.178201

Baxter v Four Oaks Properties Limited: ChD 1965

The original owner of the estate alleged to be subject to a building scheme had not laid out the estate in lots before selling off plots on it. The court considered whether a building scheme had been established.
Held: The failure did not mean that a building scheme was ineffective.
Cross J referred to the difficulty of annexing to a plot of land ‘A’ which had been earlier sold off, the benefit of a restrictive covenant imposed on the sale of plot ‘B’ which was the subject of a later sale, and said: ‘for well over 100 years past where the owner of land deals with it on the footing of imposing restrictive obligations on the use of various parts of it as and when he sells them off for the common benefit of himself (in so far as he retains any land) and of the various purchasers inter se a court of equity has been prepared to give effect to this common intention notwithstanding any technical difficulties involved.’
He went on to explore the history of the law relating to building schemes: ‘The view taken by the courts has been rather that the common vendor imposed a common law on a defined area of land and that whenever he sold a piece of it to a purchaser who knew of the common law, that piece of land automatically became entitled to the benefit of, and subject to the burden of, the common law. With the passage in time it became apparent that there was no particular virtue in the execution of a deed of mutual covenant – save as evidence of the intention of the parties – and what came to be called ‘building schemes’ were enforced by the courts if satisfied that it was the intention of the parties that the various purchasers should have rights inter se, even though no attempt was made to bring them into direct contractual relations.’

Cross J
[1965] Ch 816
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Elliston v Reacher ChD 1908
The court was asked whether a building scheme had been established.
Held: It had. The court set out the factors which must be shown to establish a building scheme on an estate; Both plaintiff and defendant’s titles must derive from the same . .

Cited by:
Cited – Small v Oliver and Saunders (Developments) Ltd ChD 25-May-2006
The claimant said his property had the benefit of covenants in a building scheme so as to allow him to object to the building of an additional house on a neighbouring plot in breach of a covenant to build only one house on the plot. Most but not all . .
Approved – Lund v Taylor CA 1975
The defendant appealed against a finding that a building scheme was effective over his land. There was no evidence that any purchaser had seen the architect’s plan prepared for the common vendor or was told that the common vendor was proposing to . .
Cited – Turner and Another v Pryce and others ChD 9-Jan-2008
The claimants asserted that they had the benefit of restrictive covenants under a building scheme to prevent the defendants erecting more houses in their neighbouring garden. The defendants pointed to alleged breaches of the same scheme by the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.242389

Olympic Delivery Authority v Persons Unknown and Others: ChD 18 Apr 2012

Application by the ODA for the continuation of an injunction to restrain then unknown defendants described as ‘persons unknown entering or remaining without consent on land known as Porter’s Field and surrounding land forming part of Leyton Marsh in connection with protest activities’.

Mr Justice Arnold
[2012] EWHC 1114 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.457569

Bakewell Management Ltd v Brandwood and Others: ChD 21 Mar 2002

The claimant sought a declaration that he had acquired an easement over land by driving over it, over several years. The land owner denied the easement, saying that section 193 made the claimant’s activity a crime, and that, following Hanning, criminal activity could not be used to found a claim of adverse possession. The claimant countered that an argument as to the doctrine of lost modern grant had not been proposed in Hanning, and that Hanning should accordingly be overruled.
Held: It was not for a High Court judge to go against a precedent set by the Court of Appeal, save in exceptional circumstances. In Hanning, particularly, leave to appeal had been refused by the House of Lords. The court was bound to find in favour of the land owner.

Mr Justice Park
Times 19-Apr-2002, Gazette 10-May-2002
Law of Property Act 1925 193(4)
England and Wales
Citing:
Doubted – Hanning and Others v Top Deck Travel Group Ltd CA 9-Jun-1993
The owner of a common appealed a finding that the neighbouring land owner had acquired by prescription a right of way across the common to use a track for commercial vehicles (buses) to get to the property (the bus depot).
Held: An easement . .
Cited – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Roland Brandwood and others v Bakewell Management Ltd CA 30-Jan-2003
House owners had used vehicular access across a common to get to their houses for many years. The commons owner required them to purchase the right, and they replied that they had acquired the right by lost modern grant and/or by prescription.
Land, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.170064

Philippe and Others v Cameron and Others: ChD 2 May 2012

Unfortunate dispute about the beneficial ownership of land at Sandy Lane, Cheam which has been occupied by St Andrew’s (Cheam) Lawn Tennis Club since 1938

The Hon Mr Justice Arnold
[2012] EWHC 1040 (Ch), [2012] WTLR 1275, [2012] 3 All ER 746, [2012] WLR(D) 130, [2012] 1 WLR 3487, [2012] 19 EG 95, 15 ITELR 105
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.454053

Olympic Delivery Authority v Persons Unknown: ChD 4 Apr 2012

Application by the Olympic Delivery Authority (‘ODA’) to restrain unknown defendants described as ‘persons unknown entering or remaining without consent on land known as Porters Field and surrounding land forming part of Leyton Marsh in connection with protest activities.

Mr Justice Arnold
[2012] EWHC 1012 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.452837

Wood v Midgley: HL 28 Feb 1854

A defence founded on the Statute of Frauds may be taken by demurrer.
A demurrer, for that, it appears on the bill that the agreement therein alleged to have been entered into, is not in writing signed by the Defendant, is not a speaking demurrer.
A memorandum that A. had paid to B. andpound;60 as a deposit in part payment of andpound;1000 for the purchase of a house, the terms to be expressed in an agreement to be signed as soon as prepared. Held, not a sufficient agreement in writing.
An allegation that the defendant had approved of a draft agreement, but had asked that, in order to save him the trouble of writing till it was copied, he might be allowed to call and sign the fair copy in the morning, which he promise but failed to do: Held, not a sufficient allegations of fraud to preclude him from setting up the Statute of Frauds as a defence.

[1854] EngR 313 (B), (1854) 5 De G M and G 41
Commonlii
England and Wales

Land, Contract

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.293170

Tichborne v Weir: CA 1892

The 1833 Act provided that after 20 years of adverse possession ‘the Right and Title’ to the land ‘shall be extinguished’.
Held: By barring the remedy and extinguishing the title of the person out of possession, the Act did not create a new title in the disseisor or convey the dispossessed person’s title to him.
A squatter who dispossessed a lessee and ‘ extinguished ‘ his title by the requisite period of occupation did not become liable in covenant to the lessee’s landlord by virtue of any privity of estate.

(1892) 67 LT 735
Real Property Limitation Act 1833
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.252430

Zarb and Another v Parry and Another: CA 15 Nov 2011

The parties disputed the position of the boundary between their neighbouring properties. The appellant Z had succeeded in establishing that the the boundary was as they decribed on paper, but the respondents had succeeded in their claim for adverse posession. The appellants said that the occupation having been by consent, it could not be counted as adverse.
Held: The appeal failed. The appellants acts had been insufficient to disturb the adverse possession of the respondents.
The court gave guidance on an approach to the mitigation of such disputes by buyers of land: ‘ No doubt those advising on transfers of land will consider what they need to do in future to protect their clients from costly disputes such as this one. Purchasers are not necessarily protected merely because the seller gives an assurance that the dispute with a neighbour has seemingly ‘gone away’. Boundary disputes have a habit of reappearing until finally resolved. The neighbour or the neighbour’s successor in title may, for whatever reason, resuscitate the dispute, unless something is done to prevent them from doing so. It may be that the purchaser will have to consider whether to ask the neighbour to confirm the boundaries and have the necessary deed of confirmation registered at the Land Registry in a manner capable of binding successors in title. That will involve extra costs and delay but the costs may be less than the undoubted cost of litigation of this kind. If the neighbour refuses to be bound by an agreement as to the boundary the purchaser will then know the risks that he is running by completing the purchase. Moreover, the purchaser on acquiring possession might himself be advised to bring matters to a head by himself applying for registration as owner of the land in question.’

Lord Neuberger MR, Arden, Jackson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1306, [2011] WLR (D) 331, [2012] 3 EG 88, [2011] 47 EG 105, [2011] 47 EG 105 (CS), [2012] 1 EGLR 1, [2012] 1 P and CR 10, [2012] 2 All ER 320, [2011] NPC 118, [2012] 1 WLR 1240
Bailii, WLRD
Land Registration Act 2002 98(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – J Alston and Sons Ltd v BOCM Pauls Ltd ChD 28-Nov-2008
Hazel Marshall QC discussed the idea of consent in adverse possession claims, saying that mere acquiescence in another’s use of one land is not the same as the grant of permission for that user for the purposes of the stopping time running in favour . .
Cited – Randall v Stevens And Others 25-Jun-1853
A landlord evicted a tenant who had failed to pay any rent for twenty years. Statute provided that a house could not be repossessed simply by exercising a right of entry.
Held: Lord Campbell LC, giving the judgment of the Court of Queen’s . .
Cited – 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 – Allen v England 1862
The court considered a claim for land by adverse possession against the owner on paper. Erle CJ said: ‘It may be taken that the plaintiff had the beneficial occupation for more than twenty years, and if that will give him a title, I will give him . .
Cited – Bligh v Martin ChD 1968
The paper owner of the disputed land had grazed cattle on it in winter, and denied that the defendant claiming adverse possession had been in continuous occupation.
Held: Even though the adverse possessor had received rent from the real owner, . .
Cited – Powell v McFarlane ChD 1977
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Land

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.448324

Fortune and Others v Wiltshire Council and Another: CA 20 Mar 2012

The court considered the contnuation of public rights of way against the new system of the ending of certain unrecorded rights.
Held: he appeal failed. ‘As a matter of plain language, section 67(2)(b) does not, in our judgment, require the list to be fully compliant with section 36(6). The requirement to which it refers is that such a list should exist, as was found to be the case by the judge. Moreover, section 36(6) of the 1980 Act contemplates that the list may require to be corrected. It nonetheless proceeds on the basis that what has to be corrected is a ‘list’, even though it is defective in some respects. Therefore, a list can be a list of the purposes of section 36(6) even though it omits information that is required to be recorded in it, or contains an erroneous entry.’

Arden, Longmore, Lewison LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 334, [2013] 1 WLR 808, [2012] 3 All ER 797, [2012] 2 P andCR 11, [2012] WLR(D) 90, [2012] JPL 1092
Bailii, WLRD
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 76(2)(b), Highways Act 1980 31
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Fortune and Others v Wiltshire Council and Another ChD 12-Oct-2010
. .
Cited – Folkestone Corporation v Brockman HL 1914
A public right of way was claimed. It was argued that, in the absence of evidence of facts inconsistent with a dedication of the pathway, the jury were obliged to make such a finding.
Held: The House rejected this submission. User was no more . .
Cited – Moser v Ambleside Urban District Council CA 1925
Atkin LJ said: ‘It has been suggested that you cannot have a highway except insofar as it connects two other highways. That seems to me that too wide a proposition. I think you can have a highway leading to a place of popular resort even though when . .
Cited – 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 – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Hood CA 1975
The court considered the nature of the 1949 Act: ‘The object of the statute is this: it is to have all our ancient highways mapped out, put on record and made conclusive, so that people can know what their rights are. Our old highways came into . .
Cited – Suffolk County Council v Mason HL 1979
The House considered the status of a pedestrian right of way through a caravan site to a beach, and the 1949 Act: ‘The sections which follow section 27 deal with the further steps which have to be taken before the definitive map is completed and . .
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 – Regina v Exall And Others 1866
Pollock CB directed the jury: ‘It has been said that circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a chain, and each piece of evidence as a link in the chain, but that is not so, for then, if any one link broke, the chain would fall. It is more . .
Cited – Todd v Adams and Chope (Trading as Trelawney Fishing Co) (The ‘Margaretha Maria’) CA 2002
Where the correctness of a finding of primary fact or of inference is in issue (on appeal), it cannot be a matter of simple discretion how an appellate court approaches the matter. Once the appellant has shown a real prospect (justifying permission . .
Cited – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
Cited – Datec Electronics Holdings Ltd and others v United Parcels Services Ltd HL 16-May-2007
The defendants had taken on the delivery of a quantity of the claimant’s computers. The equipment reached one depot, but then was lost or stolen. The parties disputed whether the Convention rules applied. UPS said that the claimant had agreed that . .
Cited – Datec Electronics Holdings Ltd and others v United Parcels Services Ltd HL 16-May-2007
The defendants had taken on the delivery of a quantity of the claimant’s computers. The equipment reached one depot, but then was lost or stolen. The parties disputed whether the Convention rules applied. UPS said that the claimant had agreed that . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Land Registry (Peterborough Office) and Another CA 10-Mar-2010
The appellant had lived in a caravan on the verge of a byway and had been here for more than twelve years. He appealed against rejection of his request for possessory title. He said that there was no support in law for the maxim that adverse . .
Cited – Leigh v Jack CA 11-Dec-1879
The plaintiff’s predecessor in title (Mr Leigh) had laid out part of his estate as proposed streets to be known as Grundy Street and Napier Place. He conveyed to the defendant certain land described as being ‘bounded by’ Grundy Street and Napier . .
Cited – Micklethwait v Newlay Bridge Co CA 1886
Where land is bounded by a river or a public highway it is a general principle that a conveyance of the land will pass half the river bed or half the soil of the highway, as the case may be. Lopes LJ said: ‘if land adjoining a highway or a river is . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Hood CA 1975
The court considered the nature of the 1949 Act: ‘The object of the statute is this: it is to have all our ancient highways mapped out, put on record and made conclusive, so that people can know what their rights are. Our old highways came into . .
Cited – Robinson Webster (Holdings) Ltd v Agombar ChD 9-Apr-2001
Declaration as to public rights of way. The court considered the sufficiency of historical evidence to show dedication of public vehicular rights. . .
Cited – Winchester College and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 29-Apr-2008
The college appealed against modifications of definitive map to upgrade two footpaths to byways open to all traffic. The college was circled by footpaths which it wished to protect when the council constructed a new bypass.
Held: The College’s . .
Cited – Maroudas v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs CA 18-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against an order refusing his request to quash a footpath modification order. The request had not been signed as required.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘subject to the de minimis principle, an application must strictly . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.452198

Colls v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd: HL 2 May 1904

The courts below had concluded that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff’s right to light, and had awarded an injunction.
Held: the appeal succeeded. The House set out the requirements for establishing the existence of a right to light. For an obstruction of ancient lights, the obstruction must be substantial, enough to render the occupation of the house uncomfortable according to ordinary notions of mankind, and for business premises, to stop the occupier carrying out his business as beneficially as before. The 1832 Act did not alter the character of the easement. The enjoyment of the light for 20 years creates an absolute and indefeasible rights as soon as the twenty years expires, but is not a period in gross, but a period next before some suit or action in which it is questioned. ‘The test of the right is, I think, whether the obstruction complained of is a nuisance, and, as it appears to me, the value of the test makes the amount of right required depend upon the surroundings and circumstances of light coming from other sources, as well as the question of the proximity of the premises complained of . . In each of such cases it becomes a question of degree, and the question is in each case whether it amounts to a nuisance which will give a right of action.’
The right is a purely legal one ‘it is an easement belonging to the class of negative easements. It is nothing more or less than the right to prevent the owner or occupier of an adjoining tenement from building or placing on his own land anything which has the effect of illegally obstructing or obscuring the light of the dominant tenement.’
The primary remedy is an injunction, but there may be circumstances where a remedy in damages was more appropriate, though the court should not allow the right to be used as a means of extorting money.
As to remedies, Lord MacNaghten: ‘But if there is really a question as to whether the obstruction is legal or not, and if the defendant has acted fairly and not in an unneighbourly spirit, I am disposed to think that the Court ought to incline to damages rather than to an injunction. It is quite true that a man ought not to be compelled to part with his property against his will, or to have the value of his property diminished, without an Act of Parliament. On the other hand, the Court ought to be very careful not to allow an action for the protection of ancient lights to be used as a means of extorting money. Often a person who is engaged in a large building scheme has to pay money right and left in order to avoid litigation, which will put him to even greater expense by delaying his proceedings. As far as my own experience goes, there is quite as much oppression on the part of those who invoke the assistance of the Court to protect some ancient lights, which they have never before considered of any great value, as there is on the part of those who are improving the neighbourhood by the erection of buildings that must necessarily to some extent interfere with the light of adjoining premises’. And ‘In some cases, of course, an injunction is necessary – if, for instance, the injury cannot fairly be compensated by money – if the defendant has acted in a high-handed manner – if he has endeavoured to steal a march upon the plaintiff or to evade the jurisdiction of the Court. In all these cases an injunction is necessary, in order to do justice to the plaintiff and as a warning to others. But if there is really a question as to whether the obstruction is legal or not, and if the defendant has acted fairly and not in an unneighbourly spirit, I am disposed to think that the Court ought to incline to damages rather than to an injunction. It is quite true that a man ought not to be compelled to part with his property against his will, or to have the value of his property diminished, without an Act of Parliament. On the other hand, the Court ought to be very careful not to allow an action for the protection of ancient lights to be used as a means of extorting money.’
Lord Davey: ‘It is impossible to assert that any man has a right to a fixed amount of light ascertainable by metes and bounds.’ and ‘ . . generally speaking an owner of ancient lights is entitled to sufficient light according to the ordinary notions of mankind for the comfortable use and enjoyment of his house as a dwelling-house, if it is a dwelling-house, or for the beneficial use and occupation of the house if it is a warehouse, a shop, or other place of business. The expressions ‘the ordinary notions of mankind’, ‘comfortable use and enjoyment’, and ‘beneficial use and occupation’ introduce elements of uncertainty; but similar uncertainty has always existed and exists still in all cases of nuisance, and in this country an obstruction of light has commonly been regarded as a nuisance, although the right to light has been regarded as a peculiar kind of easement.’
Lord Lindley: ‘There is no rule of law that if a person has 45 degrees of unobstructed light through a particular window left to him he cannot maintain an action for a nuisance caused by diminishing the light which formerly came through that window. Experience shows that it is, generally speaking, a fair working rule to consider that no substantial injury is done to him where an angle of 45 degrees is left to him, especially of there is good light from other directions as well.’

Lord MacNaghten, Lord Davey, Lord Lindley
[1904] AC 179, 73 LJ Ch 484, 90 LT 687, 53 WR 30, 20 TLR 475, [1904] UKHL 1
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Criticised in part – Scott v Pape CA 1886
Once an easement has been abandoned, it is abandoned forever. The court considered the issue as regards rights of light, and alterations made after the right had been indefeasibly acquired.
Cotton LJ said: ‘In my opinion the question to be . .

Cited by:
Cited – Allen and Another v Greenwood and Another CA 16-Oct-1978
cw Easement – Prescription – Right to light – Greenhouse – Claim for sufficient light to cultivate plants – Whether specially high amount of light – Whether right to extraordinary amount of light capable of being . .
Cited – Midtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Company Ltd ChD 20-Jan-2005
Tenants occupied land next to land which was to be developed after compulsory acquisition. The tenants and the landlords asserted a right of light over the land, and sought an injunction to prevent the development. The developer denied that any . .
Applied – Fishenden v Higgs and Hill Ltd CA 1935
An injunction had been refused an injunction in respect of an infringement of an easement of light and awarded damages in lieu, even though the damages would be substantial because it had been shown that the plaintiff was plainly ‘only wanting . .
Cited – Regan v Paul Properties DPF No 1 Ltd and others ChD 27-Jul-2006
The claimant sought an injunction claiming that new building works were a nuisance in breaching his rights of light.
Held: The claim for an injunction failed. Whatever may be the position in cases of other wrongful conduct, in the case of an . .
Cited – Kine v Jolly CA 1905
The court refused an injunction in respect of an infringement of the right to light to a dwelling house, restricting the plaintiff to a remedy in damages. Cozens-Hardy LJ: ‘I think it is impossible to doubt that the tendency of the speeches in the . .
Cited – CGIS City Plaza Shares 1 Ltd and Another v Britel Fund Trustees Ltd ChD 13-Jun-2012
cgis_britelChD2012
The claimants asserted a right of light either by prescription or under lost modern grant. The defendants argued that alterations in the windows arrangements meant that any prescription period was restarted.
Held: ‘the Defendant is not correct . .
Cited – Slack v Leeds Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd CA 1924
Nothing in Colls served to undermine the ‘good working rule’ of A L Smith LJ in Shelfer, although they discharged a quia timet injunction and ordered an inquiry as to damages . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Nuisance

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.183161

Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Waterloo Real Estate Inc: ChD 13 May 1998

The owner of a party wall who had allowed a neighbour exclusive use of it without objection for a period over twelve years, could lose his interest in the wall by the adverse possession of that neighbour.

Times 13-May-1998
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal From – Prudential Assurance Company Limited v Waterloo Real Estate Inc CA 22-Jan-1999
Where title to land was to be established by adverse possession, the claim had to be unequivocal only in the sense that the intention to possess was clear to the world. It was unnecessary for the dispossessed party to know of the title he lost. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.85071

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 overstayed the expiration of a grazing tenancy, and been asked to leave but had not been dispossessed.
Held: The claimant’s appeal was allowed. The issue was only whether or not the claimant had been in actual possession of the land – had the defendant squatter dispossessed the paper owner by going into ordinary possession of the land for the requisite period without the owner’s consent? Older cases relating to an idea of ‘non-adverse possession’ should not be followed. Actual possession for one own or another’s benefit was required. The intention needed was to possess, not necessarily to ‘own’ the land. The only question after the 1833 Act was whether the squatter had been in possession in the ordinary sense of that word for the requisite period without the consent of the owner. The requirement that the land is in the possession of a person in whose favour time can run is not directed to the nature of the possession, but to the capacity of the squatter or other person in possession of the land.
An offer to purchase the paper owner’s interest need not defeat a claim (Ocean Estates).
Lord Hope of Craighead discussed the claim under Human Rights. That question: ‘….is not an easy one, as one would have expected the law – in the context of a statutory regime where compensation is not available – to lean in favour of the protection of a registered proprietor against the actions of persons who cannot show a competing title on the register. Fortunately…….a much more rigorous regime has now been enacted in Schedule 6 to the 2002 Act. Its effect will be to make it much harder for a squatter who is in possession of registered land to obtain title against the wishes of the proprietor. The unfairness in the old regime which this case has demonstrated lies not in the absence of compensation, although that is an important factor, but in the lack of safeguards against oversight or inadvertence on the part of the registered proprietor.’

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hutton
Times 05-Jul-2002, [2002] UKHL 30, [2002] 3 All ER 865, [2002] 3 WLR 221, [2003] 1 AC 419, [2002] NPC 92, [2002] HRLR 34, [2003] 1 P and CR 10, [2002] 28 EGCS 129, [2002] 2 P and CR DG22
House of Lords, Bailii
Limitation Act 1980 15 Sch 1 para 1 Sch 1 para 8, European Convention on Human Rights 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved ‘Remarkable’ – Powell v McFarlane ChD 1977
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .
Disapproved – Littledale v Liverpool College CA 1900
The mere storage of items in a property was insufficient to demonstrate the necessary intention to dispossess the rightful owner. It was a mere exercise of the rights under an easement. Enclosure of land is not necessarily decisive. Lord Lindley MR . .
Disapproved – Leigh v Jack CA 11-Dec-1879
The plaintiff’s predecessor in title (Mr Leigh) had laid out part of his estate as proposed streets to be known as Grundy Street and Napier Place. He conveyed to the defendant certain land described as being ‘bounded by’ Grundy Street and Napier . .
Cited – Ocean Estates Ltd v Pinder HL 1969
The court asked whether the sufficiency of adverse possession might be qualified either by the intentions of the paper owner or the squatter’s willingness to pay for their occupation if asked. Lord Diplock: ‘Where questions of title to land arise in . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
At first instance – 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:
Appealed to – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v South Gloucestershire District Council and Others CA 29-Mar-2001
Where there was an agreement between an applicant and the planning authority under section 106 of the new Act, with respect the undertaking of work in return for the grant of planning permission, there was no requirement for there to be a direct . .
Cited – Topplan Estates Ltd v David Townley CA 27-Oct-2004
The registered proprietor of land appealed a finding that the defendant had established adverse possession of their land. The claimant had occupied it as part of his farm. Originally there had been a grazing tenancy. The tenancy was terminated, and . .
Cited – Tower Hamlets v Barrett and Another CA 19-Jul-2005
The defendant tenants appealed an order for them to surrender possession of land which they claimed had been acquired by adverse possession. The buildings, including one which shared a party wall with the building owned by the defendants had been . .
Cited – Chapman and Another v Godinn Properties Ltd and others CA 27-Jun-2005
Dispute over right of way over land subject to claim for possessory title. ‘But each case must turn on its own facts. In a case of this nature, the court must ask itself what it is that would be expected of somebody in possession of land of this . .
At House of Lords – 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 – Inglewood Investments Company Ltd v Baker CA 8-Nov-2002
The court considered a claim for the adverse possesion of land.
Held: Dyson LJ said: ‘to establish a claim of adverse possession for the requisite period of 12 years it is necessary to establish: (1) actual possession; (2) an intention to . .
Cited – Allen v Matthews CA 13-Mar-2007
The defendants appealed an order refusing title by adverse possession to registered land. They denied that the limitation period had been restarted by their solicitor’s letter acknowledging the title.
Held: The letter must be read as a whole. . .
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 . .
Cited – Clear Channel United Kingdom Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 14-Oct-2004
The claimant sought a declaration that it had a tenancy for its occupation by an advertising station, and that it had protection under the 1954 Act. The defendant council said that only a licence had been granted.
Held: The grants included the . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Aug-2007
UK Advers Possession Law – Not Compliant
The claimant had said that the UK law which allowed it to lose land by virtue of twelve year’s occupation by a squatter, interfered with its right to ownership of property.
Held: The UK law on adverse possession did comply with the Convention. . .
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 . .
Cited – National Westminster Bank Plc v Ashe (Trustee In Bankruptcy of Djabar Babai) CA 8-Feb-2008
The mortgagees had made no payments under the charge for more than twelve years, and had remained in possession throughout. They argued that the bank were prevented from now seeking to enforce the charge. The bank argued that the possession had not . .
Cited – Roberts v Crown Estate Commissioners CA 20-Feb-2008
The commissioners sought to claim title to a foreshore by adverse possession. The claimant asserted that he had acquired title in his capacity of Lord Marcher of Magor which had owned the bed of the estuary since the Norman Conquest, and that the . .
Cited – Roberts v Swangrove Estates Ltd and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The court heard preliminary applications in a case asserting acquisition of land by adverse possession, the land being parts of the foreshore of the Severn Estuary.
Held: A person may acquire title to part of the bed of a tidal river by . .
Cited – John Laing Construction Ltd v Amber Pass Ltd ChD 7-Apr-2004
The landlord resisted the exercise of a break clause saying that the entire premises had not been vacated. The difference was as to whether mere vacation was enough, or whether the tenant had to do some further positive act. The tenant had left . .
Cited – Jones v London Borough of Merton CA 16-Jun-2008
The court was asked ‘If a former secure tenant of a dwelling-house who has become a ‘tolerated trespasser’ in it decides to cease to occupy it, does his liability to pay mesne profits to his former landlord in respect of the dwelling-house cease . .
Cited – Lancashire County Council v Buchanan Admn 7-Nov-2007
The defendant estate agent was prosecuted for misdescribing the ability of his client to convey good title to the land offered. The seller did not initially have a registered possessory title to part of the land.
Held: The agent’s appeal . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v The Land Registry (Peterborough Office) Admn 13-Feb-2009
The applicant sought judicial review of the cancellation of his application for first registration of land by adverse possession. The application had been rejected because a public right of way existed through it, and the claimant had not shown the . .
Cited – Clarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc CA 8-Dec-2009
The defendant tenants, anticipating that the landlord might delay or refuse consent to a subletting entered into a ‘virtual assignment’ of the lease, an assignment in everything but the deed and with no registration. The lease contained a standard . .
Cited – Baxter v Mannion ChD 18-Mar-2010
B appealed against an order for rectification against him of the land register returning ownership to M. B had obtained registration with possessory title, claiming to have kept horses on the field for many years in adverse possession of it. M had . .
Cited – Wilson and Another v Grainger ChD 4-Dec-2009
The claimants appealed against a decision of the Adjudicator that they had not acquired a piece of their neighbour’s land by adverse possession, on the basis that their use had been by virtue of an oral licence. The judge had found the occupation to . .
Cited – The Port of London Authority v Ashmore CA 4-Feb-2010
The Port sought to register ownership of the river bed and tidal foreshore. The defendant’s boat had been moored at a wharf, and he claimed adverse possession. The court was asked whether it was possible to acquire any title by adverse possession to . .
Cited – Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd and Another v Bocardo Sa SC 28-Jul-2010
The defendant had obtained a licence to extract oil from its land. In order to do so it had to drill out and deep under the Bocardo’s land. No damage at all was caused to B’s land at or near the surface. B claimed in trespass for damages. It now . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Land Registry (Peterborough Office) and Another CA 10-Mar-2010
The appellant had lived in a caravan on the verge of a byway and had been here for more than twelve years. He appealed against rejection of his request for possessory title. He said that there was no support in law for the maxim that adverse . .
Cited – Balevents Ltd v Sartori ChD 29-Sep-2011
A strip of land had at one point been left aside for an anticipated road widening which never took place. The defendant had eventually obtained a registered possessory title to it. The claimant, owner of a neighbouring plot, now challenged that . .
Cited – Zarb and Another v Parry and Another CA 15-Nov-2011
The parties disputed the position of the boundary between their neighbouring properties. The appellant Z had succeeded in establishing that the the boundary was as they decribed on paper, but the respondents had succeeded in their claim for adverse . .
Cited – Chambers v London Borough of Havering CA 20-Dec-2011
The defendant appealed against an order for him to surrender possession of land he had claimed by adverse possession. The Council was the registered proprietor. The defendant said he had used the land since 1981 for dumping of motor vehicle parts. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Leading Case

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.174187

Wallis’s Cayton Bay Holiday Camp Ltd v Shell-Mex and BP Ltd: CA 10 Jul 1974

A strip of land between a holiday camp and a garage had been conveyed as an intended roadway. It had not been fenced. A plot of land was sold by the previous farmer to the garage. Later the plaintiffs bought the farm, excluding the roadway, and the disputed land. They farmed the disputed land for several years. The garage was sold to the defendants, but the land remained unidentified, and the plaintiffs continued to farm it. The new road was abandoned, and the defendants tried to sell the disputed land to the plaintiffs. When they sought to fence the land, the action was begun, claiming possessory title, but failed. The plaintiffs appealed.
Held: The owners of the disputed land had left it unoccupied for the purposes of eventual use in connection with the proposed new road and there had been no sufficient ouster of the owners so as to create 12 years’ adverse possession within the Limitation Act 1939. The appeal failed.

Lord Denning MR, Stamp and Ormrod L.JJ.
[1974] 3 WLR 387, [1975] QB 94
lip
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Leigh v Jack CA 11-Dec-1879
The plaintiff’s predecessor in title (Mr Leigh) had laid out part of his estate as proposed streets to be known as Grundy Street and Napier Place. He conveyed to the defendant certain land described as being ‘bounded by’ Grundy Street and Napier . .
Applied – Williams Brothers Direct Supply Ltd v Raftery CA 1957
In a claim for the adverse possession of land, the court is to determine whether the acts of user do or do not amount to dispossession of the owner, the character of the land, the nature of the acts done on it and the intention of the squatter must . .

Cited by:
Cited – Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA 13-Feb-1989
The parties’ respective properties were separated by a fence or hedge and the true owner had no access to the disputed land. In 1967 the Defendants’ predecessors in title began to maintain the land by mowing the grass and trimming the hedges and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.174048

Seddon v Smith: 1877

Adverse possession was claimed over land subject to a private grant of a right of way. The defendant had a paper title to a strip of land along Molyneux Lane. The plaintiff sought damages for trespass, claiming for wrongful abstraction of coal from under the strip of land (as well as from under his own adjacent land). The evidence showed that the right of way had been granted over the land to the plaintiff’s predecessors in title and others. The strip of land led from a public road to other land of the plaintiff. It appeared that the plaintiff had not simply used the right of way over the strip; he had also used the remainder of the strip to raise cabbages, potatoes and other produce, ploughing it up and doing all other acts necessary for that purpose, leaving only a narrow lane which could be used as a way. This way was used by the plaintiff, and others, who were said to derive title from the defendant’s predecessor in title. At trial, the plaintiff obtained damages for coal abstracted from under all parts of the strip.
Held: His damages were reduced by one-quarter.
Cockburn CJ said: ‘Originally the soil of this piece of land known as Molyneux Lane remained in the lord of manor subject only to the easement created over it. And with the property in the soil that in the underlying minerals also of course remained in him.’

Cockburn CJ, Baggallay, Brett JJA
[1877] 36 LTR 168
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v The Land Registry (Peterborough Office) Admn 13-Feb-2009
The applicant sought judicial review of the cancellation of his application for first registration of land by adverse possession. The application had been rejected because a public right of way existed through it, and the claimant had not shown the . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Land Registry (Peterborough Office) and Another CA 10-Mar-2010
The appellant had lived in a caravan on the verge of a byway and had been here for more than twelve years. He appealed against rejection of his request for possessory title. He said that there was no support in law for the maxim that adverse . .
Cited – Powell v McFarlane ChD 1977
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Leading Case

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.320863

Chambers v London Borough of Havering: CA 20 Dec 2011

The defendant appealed against an order for him to surrender possession of land he had claimed by adverse possession. The Council was the registered proprietor. The defendant said he had used the land since 1981 for dumping of motor vehicle parts. The judge had decided that the defendant had not established factual possession for the necessary period, preferring the evidence of aerial photographs.
Held: As to one part of the land, the judge was plainly correct. However, as to another there was evidence of the use of the land by the claimant for the keeping of animals, and that was the most appropriate test. The test applied by the judge of continuity was incorrect. The judge had not addressed and made findings as to certain pieces of evidence.
As to the significance of the fencing: ‘Each case turns on its own particular facts. In a case of adverse possession, where the defendant relies upon the existence of fencing, the Judge will plainly have to consider its significance. In some cases, it will be cogent evidence, perhaps the most cogent evidence, of adverse possession where its effect is wholly to exclude the paper owner, even if it was erected to keep animals inside rather than to exclude people, including the paper owner. In other cases, when considered in the context of the evidence as a whole, fencing may be not be inconsistent with the absence of actual possession and of an intention to possess on the defendant’s part, even where the fencing physically excludes the paper owner.’ As to the latter areas of land, the appeal succeeded, and the case was remitted for reconsideration.

Rix, Etherton, Lewison LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1576
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980 15 Sch 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bligh v Martin ChD 1968
The paper owner of the disputed land had grazed cattle on it in winter, and denied that the defendant claiming adverse possession had been in continuous occupation.
Held: Even though the adverse possessor had received rent from the real owner, . .
Cited – Leigh v Jack CA 11-Dec-1879
The plaintiff’s predecessor in title (Mr Leigh) had laid out part of his estate as proposed streets to be known as Grundy Street and Napier Place. He conveyed to the defendant certain land described as being ‘bounded by’ Grundy Street and Napier . .
Cited – Generay Ltd v Containerised Storage Company Ltd CA 23-Mar-2005
. .
Cited – Powell v McFarlane ChD 1977
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .
Cited – Hounslow Borough Council v Minchington CA 1997
There may be circumstances where a squatter is deemed to be in actual possession of the land (a strip of rough land at the bottom of the appellant’s garden) providing he is the only person in effective control of it despite the fact that the true . .
Cited – Michael Batt Charitable Trust v Adams ChD 2001
The court looked at what was required to establish adverse possession in a claim for land. Laddie J said: ‘The only factor that appears, at first sight, to point in the direction to exclude anyone, is the fact that Mr Higgs maintained and repaired . .
Cited – 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 – Inglewood Investments Company Ltd v Baker CA 8-Nov-2002
The court considered a claim for the adverse possesion of land.
Held: Dyson LJ said: ‘to establish a claim of adverse possession for the requisite period of 12 years it is necessary to establish: (1) actual possession; (2) an intention to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.450103

Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Hounslow v Anne Minchinton: CA 19 Mar 1997

The defendant asserted title to a strip of land by adverse possession. The judge had held that the occupation by the claimant had been insufficient to establish possession.
Held: The use of the land as a garden for compost heaps and similar was a sufficient trespass to allow an action, and was therefore sufficient to found a claim for adverse possession. Having acquired a title by adverse possession, the claimant does not lose it by going out of possession, unless the original owner retakes possession. Enclosure is strong evidence of possession.

Lord Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Millett, Lord Justice Thorpe
[1997] EWCA Civ 1277, (1997) 74 P and CR 221
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pulleyn v Hall Aggregates (Thames Valley) Ltd 1993
. .
Cited – Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA 13-Feb-1989
The parties’ respective properties were separated by a fence or hedge and the true owner had no access to the disputed land. In 1967 the Defendants’ predecessors in title began to maintain the land by mowing the grass and trimming the hedges and . .
Cited – Leigh v Jack CA 11-Dec-1879
The plaintiff’s predecessor in title (Mr Leigh) had laid out part of his estate as proposed streets to be known as Grundy Street and Napier Place. He conveyed to the defendant certain land described as being ‘bounded by’ Grundy Street and Napier . .
Cited – Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA 13-Feb-1989
The parties’ respective properties were separated by a fence or hedge and the true owner had no access to the disputed land. In 1967 the Defendants’ predecessors in title began to maintain the land by mowing the grass and trimming the hedges and . .
Cited – Gray v Wykeham Martin and Goode 17-Jan-1977
. .
Cited – Kynoch Limited v Rowlands 1912
The parties owned adjoining agricultural land divided by a dry ditch. The Plaintiffs built an enclosing wall on their own side of the ditch, cutting themselves off from access to the ditch.
Held: The true boundary between the properties lay . .

Cited by:
Cited – Tower Hamlets v Barrett and Another CA 19-Jul-2005
The defendant tenants appealed an order for them to surrender possession of land which they claimed had been acquired by adverse possession. The buildings, including one which shared a party wall with the building owned by the defendants had been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.141673

Leigh v Jack: CA 11 Dec 1879

The plaintiff’s predecessor in title (Mr Leigh) had laid out part of his estate as proposed streets to be known as Grundy Street and Napier Place. He conveyed to the defendant certain land described as being ‘bounded by’ Grundy Street and Napier Place, therefore the intention to use the adjoining land for streets was known to all parties. Within the 20-year limitation period, both Mr Leigh and the defendant had carried out work on a fence separating Grundy Street from other land of Mr Leigh, Regent Road. From 1854 onwards the defendant had placed on Grundy Street and Napier Place old graving dock materials, screw propellers, boilers and refuse from his foundry. In 1872 (four years before action brought) the defendant completely enclosed Grundy Street and Napier Place.
Held: The defendant had not acquired title to the enclosed land under the Limitation Act 1833.
Bramwell LJ said: ‘I do not think that there was any dispossession of the plaintiff by the acts of the defendant: acts of user are not enough to take the soil out of the plaintiff and her predecessors in title and to vest it in the defendant; in order to defeat a title by dispossessing the former owner, acts must be done which are inconsistent with his enjoyment of the soil for the purposes for which he intended to use it.’
Cockburn CJ explained the rationale for the presumption: ‘It is presumed that those who were seised of the neighbouring land devoted the surface of their soil to the public, in order to confer a common benefit on all those desirous of using the highway, without, however, parting with the ownership of the soil itself.’

Bramwell LJ, Cockburn CJ
(1879) 5 Ex D 264, (1879-80) LR 5 Ex D 264, [1879] UKLawRpExch 53
Commonlii
Limitation Act 1833
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Wallis’s Cayton Bay Holiday Camp Ltd v Shell-Mex and BP Ltd CA 10-Jul-1974
A strip of land between a holiday camp and a garage had been conveyed as an intended roadway. It had not been fenced. A plot of land was sold by the previous farmer to the garage. Later the plaintiffs bought the farm, excluding the roadway, and the . .
Disapproved – 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 . .
Disapproved – Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA 13-Feb-1989
The parties’ respective properties were separated by a fence or hedge and the true owner had no access to the disputed land. In 1967 the Defendants’ predecessors in title began to maintain the land by mowing the grass and trimming the hedges and . .
Cited – Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Hounslow v Anne Minchinton CA 19-Mar-1997
The defendant asserted title to a strip of land by adverse possession. The judge had held that the occupation by the claimant had been insufficient to establish possession.
Held: The use of the land as a garden for compost heaps and similar . .
Heresy – Topplan Estates Ltd v David Townley CA 27-Oct-2004
The registered proprietor of land appealed a finding that the defendant had established adverse possession of their land. The claimant had occupied it as part of his farm. Originally there had been a grazing tenancy. The tenancy was terminated, and . .
Cited – Chambers v London Borough of Havering CA 20-Dec-2011
The defendant appealed against an order for him to surrender possession of land he had claimed by adverse possession. The Council was the registered proprietor. The defendant said he had used the land since 1981 for dumping of motor vehicle parts. . .
Cited – Fortune and Others v Wiltshire Council and Another CA 20-Mar-2012
The court considered the contnuation of public rights of way against the new system of the ending of certain unrecorded rights.
Held: he appeal failed. ‘As a matter of plain language, section 67(2)(b) does not, in our judgment, require the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.180920

Pearce v Watts: CA 9 Jun 1875

An agreement for the sale included the reservation: ‘[The Vendor] reserves the necessary land for making a railway through the estate to Prince Town.’ Specific performance was sought by the purchaser, and the vendor objected that it was void for uncertainty. In argument the purchaser disputed this, saying that the court could determine what land was necessary for the railway.
Held: The claim was refused. Sir G Jessel MR said: ‘The present contract is one which cannot be carried out by conveyance; and that being so, I do not see how the Court can alter it and make a new contract which can be carried out by conveyance. . . If the contract were executed in this form, it is obvious, according to the present law, the whole land would pass to the purchaser, the reservation being void for uncertainty. But this is not the intention of the parties, for the vendor intended to reserve a substantial part of the estate. The contract does not show what it is. I neither know what is the amount of land necessary for a railway, nor what line the railway is to take, nor anything about it, and, therefore, I cannot enforce specific performance of the contract.’

Sir G Jessel MR
(1873) LR 20 Eq 492, 20 Ch D 90, [1875] UKLawRpEq 111
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Olympia Homes Limited, Hughes etc ChD 17-Jun-2005
The claimant sought rectification of the land register. In a development deal, an option agreement had not been registered, and the land sold on. The land was required to allow the building of a roundabout necessary for the intended store. An . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.258359

Loose v Lynn Shellfish Ltd and Others: CA 19 Jun 2014

The parties disputed the rights to take shellfish from the foreshore. Fishermen now appealed against a finding as to the extent of a private fishery from which they were excluded, in particular as to the rights overfomer sandbanks, at the western, seaward boundary.
Held: The Estate’s rights extended to the lowest astromical tidal mark.

Moore-Bick, Pitchford, Kitchin LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 846, [2015] Ch 547, [2015] 2 WLR 643, [2014] WLR(D) 280
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Malcolmson v O’Dea HL 1863
A private fishery may be established by prescription.
Willes J said: ‘The soil of ‘navigable tidal rivers,’ like the Shannon, so far as the tide flows and reflows, is prima facie in the Crown, and the right of fishery prima facie in the . .
Cited – The Attorney General for The Provinces British Columbia v The Attorney General for The Dominion of Canada and Another PC 2-Dec-1913
Canada – Lord Haldane set out the principles under which fishery rights might be acquired by prescription.
Fish stocks are a public resource, and there is no property in fish until they are caught. The right to fish in tidal waters or in the . .
At ChD – Loose v Lynn Shellfish Ltd and Others ChD 18-Apr-2013
The court was asked whether the defendants had infringed the claimant’s fishery rights in an area of the Wash.
Held: The private fishery extended seawards as far as the mean low-water mark of spring tides and the fishermen had been fishing in . .

Cited by:
At CA – Lynn Shellfish Ltd and Others v Loose and Another SC 13-Apr-2016
The court was asked as to the extent of an exclusive prescriptive right (ie an exclusive right obtained through a long period of use) to take cockles and mussels from a stretch of the foreshore on the east side of the Wash, on the west coast of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Agriculture

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526737

Ferrar v City Sewers Commissioners: 1868

(Year?) A special Act incorporated the provisions of the 1845 Act other than those related to ‘the taking of land otherwise than by agreement’.
Held: Section 68 was not incorporated, because it was one of a series of clauses headed ‘with respect to the taking of land otherwise than by agreement’.

(1868-69) LR4 Ex 227
Land Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 68
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Moto Hospitality Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport CA 26-Jul-2007
The company sought damages to its business on a motorway service station when works closed an access road.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeal succeeded. A claim for compensation under section 10 had not been established, at least in respect . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.259681

Econometric Ltd and Others v Greater London Authority: UTLC 22 May 2014

COMPENSATION – Compulsory Purchase – Acquisition of 0.67 acre waste transfer station in connection with the London 2012 Olympic Park development – valuation – rental value – treatment of tenant’s payment on entry into lease – Land Compensation Act 1961 section 5, rule (2) – compensation determined at 1,475,000 pounds

[2014] UKUT 219 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land, Damages

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526453

3 Aylmer Drive, Re: UTLC 29 Apr 2014

UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – proposed erection of detached house in place of former lodge – whether practical benefits of substantial value or advantage – application granted on ground (aa) – compensation awarded of andpound;75,000 – Law of Property Act 1925 s84(1)(aa) and (c)

[2014] UKUT 153 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525942

Church Commissioners for England, R v Hampshire County Council and Another: CA 14 May 2014

Effect of correction of application to register a Town or Village Green on application date and time that may be given for such correction

Arden, Richards, Vos LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 634, [2014] WLR(D) 207, [2014] BLGR 706, [2014] 1 WLR 4555
Bailii, WLRD
Commons Act 2006, Commons (Registration of Town or Village Greens) (Interim Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2007 5(4)
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525470

Andrews, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 8 May 2014

The court was asked whether the then Secretary of State, by her Inspector, was right to dismiss an appeal against the decision of Wiltshire County Council refusing an application made by the Claimant to the Council for it to modify the Definitive Map for its area to include upon it a public bridleway that does not currently appear on that map.

Foskett J
[2014] EWHC 1435 (Admin), [2014] PTSR 1253, [2014] WLR(D) 195
Bailii, WLRD
Inclosure Consolidation Act 1801
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Andrews, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs CA 1-Jul-2015
The claimant appealed against rejection of his request for judicial review of the decision by the respondent not to amend the definitive map to show two sections of public bridleway across an arable field.
Lord Dyson MR considered the purposive . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525070

Lewis, Regina (on the application of) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Another: CA 15 Jan 2009

The claimants sought registration of land as a common, saying that it had been used by the local residents for social activities for many years. The council had licenced the land for use as a golf course for many years.
Held: The residents’ appeal failed. In the context of planning applications ‘the test of apparent bias relating to predetermination is an extremely difficult test to satisfy.’

Laws, Rix, Dyson LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 3, [2009] 1 WLR 83, [2009] 3 EG 103, [2009] NPC 8, [2009] 1 EGLR 79, [2009] 15 EG 100, [2009] EWCA Civ 3, [2009] BLGR 649, [2009] 1 WLR 1461, [2009] BLGR 649, [2009] 4 All ER 1232, [2009] JPL 1192, [2009] 15 EG 100, [2009] NPC 8, [2009] 1 EGLR 79, [2009] 3 EG 103
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Lewis, Regina (on the Application of) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Admn 20-Dec-2007
The claimant sought registration of an open area as a Commons under the 2006 Act. Until 2002 it had been tenanted by a golf club. The inspector had recommended against registration, saying that the use by the public for lawful pastimes had been for . .

Cited by:
Applied – Chandler v London Borough of Camden Admn 13-Feb-2009
Forbes J considered the test for whether apparent bias was shown when it was suggested that the local authority may have already made up its mind on a school re-organisation. . .
Appeal from – Lewis, Regina (on The Application of) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Another SC 3-Mar-2010
The claimants sought to have land belonging to the council registered as a village green to prevent it being developed. They said that it had for more than twenty years been used by the community for various sports. The council replied that it had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Administrative, Land

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.402564

Ramac HoldingsLtd v Kent County Council: UTLC 3 Apr 2014

UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – land adjoining widened A-road – whether land should be valued in isolation or as part of retained land – principle of equivalence – whether elements of disturbance caused by the acquisition of land or by works – whether claim extinguished by betterment – compensation awarded at andpound;67,008.26

Her Honour Judge Alice Robinson and P D McCrea FRICS
[2014] UKUT 109 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523834

Halpern and Others v Greater London Authority: UTLC 18 Mar 2014

UTLC COMPENSATION – Compulsory purchase of 1.1 acre waste transfer site -planning assumptions – valuation – disturbance – extinguishment of business – pre-possession ‘shadow period’ losses – management time – re-investment costs – Land Compensation Act 1961 section 5 rules (2) and (6), sections 14(3) and 16(3) and section 10A – compensation determined at andpound;2,580,747

HH David Mole QC
[2014] UKUT 116 (LC)
Bailii
Land Compensation Act 1961 5
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523494

Rashid and Another v Sharif and Another: CA 31 Mar 2014

Appeal in a boundary dispute. The central issues were (a) whether the defendants have committed a trespass by constructing a shed at the end of their garden at a point where the claimants’ back garden and the defendants’ back garden meet and (b) whether the defendants should be ordered to demolish the north wall of their shed.

Jackson, Elias LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 377
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523424

Raja v Salford City Council: UTLC 20 Oct 2021

HOUSING ACT 2004 – CIVIL PENALTY ORDER – burden and standard of proof – whether reliable and fair to determine facts to the criminal standard of proof without a hearing – level of penalty – inadequacy of reasons – appeal allowed in part (as to the appropriate level of penalty)

[2021] UKUT 261 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.669248

Hill and Another v Transport for London: ChD 16 May 2005

The claimants sought to establish title to land by adverse possession. The land was former Crown land. They had occupied the land since 1985. The defendants acquired the land from the Crown in 2000.
Held: Part II of the 1980 Act need to be read as a whole. The Crown had up to 30 years to claim from when the right of action first accrued. The successor to the Crown had the same rights. The claim failed.
Claim for land by adverse possession.

Rimer J
Times 30-May-2005, [2005] EWHC 856 (Ch), [2005] Ch 379, [2005] 3 All ER 677, [2005] 3 WLR 471
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980 8Sch 1 PII p12
England and Wales

Land, Limitation

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.226738

Moskofian v Foster and Others (Restrictive Covenants – Modification): UTLC 21 Sep 2021

Modification – covenant restricting obstruction above boundary wall height – planning consent for conversion to seven flats including three storey rear extension and single storey outbuilding for cycle and refuse storage – whether covenant secures practical benefits of substantial value or advantage – s.84(1)(aa), Law of Property Act 1925 – application granted – compensation awarded to 11 objectors

[2021] UKUT 214 (LC)
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1925
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.669238

Lee And His Wife v Coleshill: 1653

An obligation containing covenants, some of which are against the provisions of a statute, and others good, is void for the whole.

[1653] EngR 1208, (1653) Cro Eliz 529, (1653) 78 ER 776
Commonlii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.413515

Patrick Haldane, Esq; v Sir Alexander Anstruther, Bart Robert Lumsden of Innergellie, and Isabel Lady Dowager of Innergellie, His Mother, Mr Walter Wilson, and Sir John Anstruther, Bart: HL 20 Mar 1727

Sale – By articles of agreement for the sale of an estate, the disposition was to be delivered by a day certain, and the price to be paid ten days afterwards; but the seller was not obliged to deliver the disposition till heritable security was granted for the price.
The estate being much incumbered, the creditors are preferred to the price upon assigning their debts with absolute warrandice.

[1727] UKHL Robertson – 601, (1727) Robertson 601
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.554237

Brunner v Greenslade: ChD 1971

Megarry J discussed the ratio decidendi of and approving dicta in Lawrence.
‘The substance of the views of Simonds J was that where there is a head scheme, any sub-purchasers are bound inter se by the covenants of that head scheme even though they have entered into no covenants with the sub-vendor or with each other. What binds the sub-purchasers inter se is not any covenant of their own making (for there is none) but an equity independent of any contractual obligation entered into by them, and arising from the circumstances of the existence of the head scheme, the process of division into sub-lots and the disposal of those lots. If on the disposal the common intention was that the local law created by the head scheme should apply within the sub-area, then apply it would. It would be remarkable if the restrictions of the head scheme were to be reciprocally enforceable between the owners of a sub-lot and of a plot elsewhere on the estate, however distant, and yet be unenforceable as between neighbouring owners of sub-lots. I have ventured a somewhat free summary of the conclusions reached by Simonds J., but I think that it contains the kernel of his reasoning.
…Perhaps I may go back to first principles and try to summarise the matter in my own way. The most straightforward case is where A owns the entire estate and, having laid it out, himself sells individual lots to individual purchasers who enter into the covenants of the scheme. As soon as he sells a lot to the first purchaser, B, the scheme crystallises. Not only is B bound in respect of his lot to A, for the benefit of the remainder of the estate, but also A is bound, in respect of the remainder of the estate, to B, for the benefit of B’s plot. It may be noted that while B is bound by the express covenants that he entered into, A may well have entered into no express covenants with B; and yet the concept of a scheme of development requires that A shall be treated as having impliedly bound himself by the provisions of the scheme. If A then sells another plot to C, C is taking part of the land that has already been subjected to the scheme in favour of B, and the covenants that he enters into are treated as being made for the benefit not only of A’s remaining land but also of B’s plot. If A continues to sell off one lot to each purchaser, and all the purchasers are different, in this way the whole concept of the enforceability of the covenants under a scheme of development, as between all within the area of the scheme, is readily explicable in terms of covenant, express or implied.’

Megarry J
[1971] Ch 993
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lawrence v South Country Freeholds Ltd ChD 1939
Simonds J held that on the facts before him no general scheme of development existed. It was accordingly not necessary to determine what rights as between the sub-purchasers there might have been if the main scheme had been held to exist. However, . .

Cited by:
Cited – Small v Oliver and Saunders (Developments) Ltd ChD 25-May-2006
The claimant said his property had the benefit of covenants in a building scheme so as to allow him to object to the building of an additional house on a neighbouring plot in breach of a covenant to build only one house on the plot. Most but not all . .
Dicta approved – Youngsam, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board Admn 7-Apr-2017
The claimant challenged being recalled to prison from licence after being found in an area from which he was excluded as a condition of his parole. . .
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Constitutional

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.242394

Davies and Another v Crawley Borough Council: Admn 1 Nov 2001

The council adopted schemes licensing on street trading. The applicants had established uses on streets where such activity was now prohibited. The council offered alternative trading sites on payment of annual fees. The applicants asserted the scheme was Wednesbury unreasonable, having not made allowance for existing uses permitted by law. The authority should have made discontinuance orders which would have allowed a claim for compensation.
Held: The applicants’ interests in the land was tenuous, and they had no rights in land which could be affected. The Act gave the authority a wide discretion in such schemes, and their choice was not disproportionate.

Goldring J
Gazette 15-Nov-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 854
Bailii
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 3
England and Wales

Local Government, Land

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.167255

Lawrence v South Country Freeholds Ltd: ChD 1939

Simonds J held that on the facts before him no general scheme of development existed. It was accordingly not necessary to determine what rights as between the sub-purchasers there might have been if the main scheme had been held to exist. However, as the point had been fully argued, he expressed his views on it. I do not think that such views can simply be stigmatised as being obiter and so of little weight. A mere passing remark, or a statement or assumption on some matter that has not been argued, is one thing; a considered judgment on a point fully argued is another, especially where, had the facts been otherwise, it would have formed part of the ratio. Such judicial dicta, standing in authority somewhere between a ratio decidendi and an obiter dictum, seem to me to have a weight nearer to the former than the latter . . ‘

Simonds J
[1939] Ch 656
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Brunner v Greenslade ChD 1971
Megarry J discussed the ratio decidendi of and approving dicta in Lawrence.
‘The substance of the views of Simonds J was that where there is a head scheme, any sub-purchasers are bound inter se by the covenants of that head scheme even though . .
Cited – Youngsam, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board Admn 7-Apr-2017
The claimant challenged being recalled to prison from licence after being found in an area from which he was excluded as a condition of his parole. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.581639

Morningside (Leicester) Ltd Re 169 Narborough Road: UTLC 17 Feb 2014

UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – 1864 and 1881 restrictive covenants – use as private dwellinghouse only and imposition of building lines – uncontested breach as a doctor’s surgery – no breach of building lines – application to discharge 1864 covenant under ground (a) allowed in part – application to discharge remainder of 1864 covenant under ground (c) refused – application to discharge 1881 covenant under grounds (a) and (c) refused – Law of Property Act 1925 s.84

A J Trott FRICS
[2014] UKUT 70 (LC)
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1925 84
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521510

Timec 1209 Llp v Salford City Council: UTLC 5 Nov 2021

COMPULSORY PURCHASE – COMPENSATION – office building acquired as part of comprehensive redevelopment of Salford City Centre – rule 2 value in no scheme world – s.5, Land Compensation Act 1961 – Compensation determined at pounds 5,597,500

[2021] UKUT 269 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.669251

Adamson and Others v Paddico (267) Ltd: SC 5 Feb 2014

Land had been registered as a town or village green but wrongly so. The claimant had sought rectification, but the respondents argued that the long time elapsed after registration should defeat the request.
Held: The appeal were solely as to the way the lapse of time may be relevant to whether or not it wa just to rectify register. The statute itself laid don no time limit for the application of the power to rectify, and the section contained no bias for or against rectification, and: ‘although the interests of the wider public are not irrelevant, the section is principally focussing on justice as between the applicant for rectification of a registration and the local inhabitants who are the beneficiaries of that registration.’
Applying tose principles, the court decided to allow one appeal and reject the oher.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKSC 7, [2014] 1 AC 1072, [2014] 1 P and CR 24, [2014] 2 WLR 300, [2014] 2 All ER 1, [2014] JPL 745, [2014] WLR(D) 51, [2014] BLGR 249, [2014] 1 P andCR 24, UKSC 2012/0089
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Commons Registration Act 1965 1(2)(a), Commons Registration (New Land) Regulations, SI 1969 No 1843, Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 22
England and Wales
Citing:
At First Instance – Paddico (267) Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Others ChD 23-Jun-2011
The company sought the rectification of the register of village greens to remove an entry relating to its land, saying that the Council had not properly considered the need properly to identify the locality which was said to have enjoyed the rights . .
Appeal from – Adamson v Paddico (267) Ltd CA 7-Mar-2012
Appeal was made against an order that the register of town and village greens be amended by the deletion of an entry. . .
Cited – Regina v Oxfordshire County Council and Another, Ex Parte Sunningwell Parish Council HL 25-Jun-1999
When setting out to establish that a piece of land has become a village green with rights of common, the tests are similar to those used in the law of prescription and adverse possession. Accordingly, there is no need to establish a belief in those . .
Cited – 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: . .
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 . .
Cited – Lewis, Regina (on The Application of) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Another SC 3-Mar-2010
The claimants sought to have land belonging to the council registered as a village green to prevent it being developed. They said that it had for more than twenty years been used by the community for various sports. The council replied that it had . .
Cited – Regina v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, Ex parte Caswell HL 17-May-1990
The House sought to reconcile section 31 of the 1981 Act, with RSC Order 53 r4 as to the time within which judicial review proceedings must be brought.
Held: Whenever there was a failure to act promptly or within three months there was ‘undue . .
Cited – Regina v Newbury District Council and Newbury and District Agricultural Society ex parte Chieveley Parish Council CA 23-Jul-1998
Planning authority could not reserve matters where outline approval given under General Development Order. A three year delay between the decision, and the application for judicial review was an undue delay defeating that application. Undue delay . .
Cited – Regina v Bassetlaw District Council, Ex parte Oxby CA 11-Dec-1997
Hobhouse LJ stated that ‘if it has been clearly established . . that a planning consent was improperly and invalidly granted, then it should, in principle, be declared to be void’. . .
Cited – Smith v Clay 10-May-1767
Long Delay in Application Debarred Remedy
Review was sought of a decree pronounced some thirty or forty years before. The defect was apparent on the face of the record.
Held: The review was barred by the length of time elapsed.
Lord Camden LC applied the doctrine of laches, . .
Cited – Corbett v Restormel Borough Council and Land and Property Limited CA 8-Aug-1997
. .
Cited – Corbett v Restormel Borough Council and Another CA 2-Mar-2001
Schiemann LJ said: ‘However, as is well known, there clashes with this principle of legal certainty another principle which is also of great value – the principle of legality which requires that administrators act in accordance with the law and . .
Cited – Bahamas Hotel Maintenance and Allied Workers Union v Bahamas Hotel Catering and Allied Workers Union and Others PC 23-Feb-2011
Two trade union disputed the right of the other to be registered with and to use a similar name to their own. There had been considerable delays in the conduct of the judicial review proceeding.
Held: The Board upheld the trial judge’s refusal . .
Cited – Wright v Vanderplank 20-Jul-1855
In every case of a gift to a parent by a child, shortly after the child attains majority, the Court looks with jealousy upon the transaction, more especially when the parent has, during the minority, been guardian of the child’s property, and in . .
Cited – Weld v Petre 1929
Delay simpliciter is immaterial in the case of equitable remedies. A mortgagor’s redemption suit was held not time-barred under laches despite his delay of twenty-six years. . .
Cited – Burroughs v Abbott 1922
The court granted rectification of an instrument after a delay of twelve years. . .
Cited – RB Policies at Lloyd’s v Butler 1949
A car insured by the plaintiffs had been stolen by an unknown person in June 1940. In January 1947 the car was found in the possession of the defendant who it seems had ‘given good consideration for it without knowledge that it was a stolen car’. It . .
Cited – Fisher v Brooker and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought a share in the royalties from the song ‘A whiter shade of pale’ but had delayed his claim for 38 years. He had contributed the organ solo which had contributed significantly to the song’s success. He now sought a share of future . .
Cited – A v Hoare HL 30-Jan-2008
Each of six claimants sought to pursue claims for damages for sexual assaults which would otherwise be time barred under the 1980 Act after six years. They sought to have the House depart from Stubbings and allow a discretion to the court to extend . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Equity

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521156

Sandher v Pearson: CA 28 Nov 2013

‘The issue on this appeal is whether the respondent, . . who bought [the] property was unjustly enriched when part of that purchase price was used to pay off a charge or at least to clear a restriction. The claimant had arranged that transaction with Hedge Capital in his favour.

[2013] EWCA Civ 1822
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521064

Emmett v Sisson: CA 3 Feb 2014

Appeal against judgment in boundary dispute involving a private driveway.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The respondents are entitled to exercise the ‘relative luxury’ of the ample right to gain both vehicular and pedestrian access to their land from the Driveway Land along the whole length of the right of way, unless insistence on this is either unreasonable or perverse.’

Sir Brian Leveson, Aikens, Macur LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 64
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cooke v Ingram 1893
Wright J said: ‘There is nothing in the original grant of the way which expressly limits the grantee to one line of access or to access only at the points, if any where his land actually adjoined the new way. And the parties certainly acted from the . .
Cited – Pettey v Parsons CA 1914
Mr Parsons (the defendant) owned a parcel of land on the junction of two roads in Bournemouth, called Charminster Road and Alma Road. In the middle of the parcel there was a footpath which ran from Charminster Road westwards to a private road which . .
Cited – National Trust v White ChD 1987
Warner J discussed the cases of Cooke v Ingram and Pettey v Parsons concerning rights of way: ‘Each was concerned with the resolution, in particular circumstances, of the inevitable conflict between the dominant owner’s right of access to the way . .
Cited – West v Sharp CA 1999
Mummery LJ set out the test to be applied when asking whether there had been a substantial interference in the exercise of an easement so as to be actionable: ‘Not every interference with an easement, such as a right of way, is actionable. There . .
Cited – Well Barn Shoot Limited and Well Barn Farming Limited v Shackleton and Another CA 22-Jan-2003
The defendants had been tenant farmers of the plaintiff company which retained shooting rights over the land when part was sold to the defendants. The defendant object to the use of a roadway by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to repurchase the . .
Cited – Keefe v Amor CA 1965
The Court declined to limit the extent of a right of way 20 feet wide by reference to the bottleneck at its entrance from the road of 4 feet 6 inches, consisting of a pair of gate pillars and a gate of that width. The grant was over the whole 20 . .
Cited – Celsteel Ltd v Alton House Holdings Ltd ChD 1985
An equitable easement (a right of way), which was not protected by any entry on the register, was a right openly exercised and enjoyed as appurtenant, in this case to a garage, and it adversely affected registered land as an overriding interest. The . .
Cited – B and Q Plc v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Ltd ChD 26-Jul-2000
The dominant owner wished to deal with delivery vehicles in a manner where they were left parked awaiting emptying. The servient owner (a lessee) wanted to construct buildings over a large part of the land. The servient owner objected.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521039

Day v Shaw and Another: ChD 17 Jan 2014

Mr and Mrs Shaw had granted a second charge over their jointly-owned matrimonial home to secure the personal guarantee given by their daughter and by Mr Shaw in respect of a bank loan to a company (Avon). Their daughter and Mr Shaw were the shareholders and directors of Avon. Mrs Shaw had no involvement in the company, and, while she may have held some shares in it, there was no evidence that it was a substantial shareholding. On the sale of their home, the liability to the bank was discharged out of the proceeds. In proceedings brought by a creditor with a judgment against Mr Shaw to enforce a charging order against the property, the issue arose whether Mrs Shaw was entitled to an equity of exoneration as against Mr Shaw’s share of the property.
At first instance, the district judge held that Mrs Shaw was entitled to be exonerated out of Mr Shaw’s share of the property and rejected the claimant’s case that, because Mr and Mrs Shaw’s financial position was tied up with the prosperity of Avon, the borrowings for Avon’s business were indirectly for their joint benefit, so precluding the equity from arising in Mrs Shaw’s favour.
Held: The sub-sureties (Mr and Mrs Shaw) were entitled to be indemnified by the sureties (Mr Shaw and Mrs Shergold) in just the same way as a surety was entitled to be indemnified by a principal debtor. Although, overall, Avon waqs the principal debtor, if one asked as between the guarantors and the mortgagors who was the principal debtor, the answer was: the guarantors.
Mr Shaw as one of the two guarantors was liable to indemnify Mrs Shaw as one of the two mortgagors in relation to the debt owed to Barclays and her right to an indemnity gave her a proprietary right in relation to Mr Shaw’s share in the property.

Morgan J
[2014] EWHC 36 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Re Cronmire, ex parte Cronmire CA 1901
At the husband’s request his wife deposited with his bankers the title deeds of her property as security for advances to be made to him. Before he became bankrupt the debt was paid off by her.
Held: The court acknowledged the entitlement of a . .
Cited – Hall v Hall ChD 1911
An equity of exoneration in favour of a wife arises ‘at the time she charges her estate’. The doctrine of exoneration is based on an inference in each case from all the facts of that particular case. Where one co-habitee joins in granting a charge . .
Cited – Gee v Liddell ChD 1913
A co-mortgagor has an ‘interest in [and] a charge upon the estate of the principal debtor’. An equity of exoneration was applied as between brothers.
An equity of exoneration operates in the nature of ‘a charge upon the estate of the principal . .
Cited – Re a debtor (No 24 of 1971), ex parte Marley (J) v Trustee of the property of the debtor ChD 1976
The court will look to the realities of the relationship between the mortgagors and will not be governed by the terms of the mortgage instrument if they do not accord with the actual facts.
Held: the court accepted that an equity of . .
Cited – In Re Pittortou (a bankrupt) ChD 1985
H and W charged the property to secure the H’s overdrawn bank account. The account was used both for his business and for payment of expenses relating to the matrimonial home. H was adjudicated bankrupt. W sought her equity to be exonerated from H’s . .
Cited – Paget v Paget CA 1898
The plaintiff wife was ‘a lady of fortune’, with the bulk of her property settled on her for life for her separate use without power of anticipation. They ‘moved in good society and, large as their income was, they lived far beyond it.’ They were . .
Cited – Re Woodstock (a bankrupt) ChD 19-Nov-1979
Walton J drew attention in his judgment to the need for the courts, in considering how the equity of exoneration should work as between a husband and a wife, to take into account the relationship which husbands and wives bear, or ought to bear, to . .
Cited – Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2); Barclays Bank plc v Harris; Midland Bank plc v Wallace, etc HL 11-Oct-2001
Wives had charged the family homes to secure their husband’s business borrowings, and now resisted possession orders, claiming undue influence.
Held: Undue influence is an equitable protection created to undo the effect of excess influence of . .
Cited – Craythorne v Swinburne 23-Jul-1807
No contribution in favour of one Surety against another : his engagement, according to the bond, and parol evidence, which was held admissible, being, not as Co-surety, but, without the privity of the other, as a distinct collatteral secnrity, . .
Cited – Fox et al v Royal Bank of Canada et al 7-Oct-1975
Canlii Supreme Court of Canada – Guarantee -Surety and sub-surety – Co-sureties – Sub-surety guaranteeing liability of surety – Surety paying creditor-Right of sub-surety to indemnity from the co-sureties. . .
Cited – Scholefield Goodman and Sons Ltd v Zyngier PC 16-Aug-1985
(Victoria) By a mortgage executed in favour of the bank Mrs Zyngier covenanted to pay to the bank any sums which might be owed to it either by herself or by a named company, including any amounts for or in respect of any bills of exchange on which . .
Cited – Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Citibank Savings Ltd 1995
(New South Wales) Mr and Mrs P owned and controlled W Ltd. W Ltd borrowed monies from Citibank which took security for repayment in the form of a charge over the home of Mr and Mrs P and also a charge over the home of the parents of Mr P. On the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Armstrong v Onyearu and Another CA 11-Apr-2017
Exoneration of partner’s equity on insolvency
The court considered the equity of exoneration, where property jointly owned by A and B is charged to secure the debts of B only, A is or may be entitled to a charge over B’s share of the property to the extent that B’s debts are paid out of A’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Equity

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520821

British Railways Board v Herrington: HL 16 Feb 1972

Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers

The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a trespasser, the creation by him of particular risks which may be unknown to sections of the public, including children, might create such a liability. The test may be subjective, as to whether a land-owner of this character might reasonably be expected to do or refrain from doing something on his land to avoid the risk. A duty might arise where the owner had, or ought to have had, actual knowledge of trespassers using the land, and of the risk they might face, and the risk was such as might cause a person with ordinary humane feelings to seek to avoid it. The duty does not extend beyond taking reasonable steps to enable a trespasser to avoid the danger.
Lord Diplock said that the court may draw adverse inferences from a defendant’s decision not to give or call evidence as to matters within the knowledge of himself or his employees: ‘This is a legitimate tactical move under our adversarial system of litigation. But a defendant who adopts it cannot complain if the court draws from the facts which have been disclosed all reasonable inferences as to what are the facts which the defendant has chosen to withhold.’
As to the liability of a railway undertaking for injury suffered by trespassers on the line, Lord Diplock said: ‘The appellants, who are a public corporation, elected to call no witnesses, thus depriving the court of any positive evidence as to whether the condition of the fence and the adjacent terrain had been noticed by any particular servant of theirs or as to what he or any other of their servants either thought or did about it. This is a legitimate tactical move under our adversarial system of litigation. But a defendant who adopts it cannot complain if the court draws from the facts which have been disclosed all reasonable inferences as to what are the facts which the defendant has chosen to withhold. A court may take judicial notice that railway lines are regularly patrolled by linesmen and Bangers. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is entitled to infer that one or more of them in the course of several weeks noticed what was plain for all to see. Anyone of common sense would realise the danger that the state of the fence so close to the live rail created for little children coming to the meadow to play. As the appellants elected to call none of the persons who patrolled the line there is nothing to rebut the inference that they did not lack the common sense to realise the danger. A court is accordingly entitled to infer from the inaction of the appellants that one or more of their employees decided to allow the risk to continue of some child crossing the boundary and being injured or killed by the live rail rather than to incur the trivial trouble and expense of repairing the gap in the fence.’

Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Pearson and Lord Diplock
[1972] AC 877, [1972] 2 WLR 537, [1971] 1 All ER 749, [1972] UKHL 1
lip, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Limited – Addie (Robert) and Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck HL 25-Feb-1929
No occupier is under any duty to potential trespassers, whether adults or children, to do anything to protect them from danger on his land, however likely it may be that they will come and run into danger and however lethal the danger may be. . .
Cited – Adams v Naylor HL 1946
The House disapproved of the practice of appointing a nominee defendant in tort actions against whom damages could be awarded as opposed to a party with crown immunity. The House refused to entertain a claim against a nominated army officer arising . .
Cited – Baker v Bethnal Green Corporation CA 1945
The plaintiff sought damages after a relative died in the stairwell of an underground tube station taken over by the defendant for use as an air raid shelter. The steps down to the station were known to be unsafe, being wide without protective . .
Cited – Billings (AC) and Sons Ltd v Riden HL 1957
A building contractor may assume a duty of care to a visitor, though the contractor was not viewed as the occupier, the occupier being separately liable to the injured plaintiff. However, ‘if the Plaintiff knew the danger, either because he was . .
Cited – Bird v Holbrook CCP 9-May-1828
Whether a trespasser who was injured could recover or not depends at common law upon whether notice had been given him of the presence of those dangers on the defendant’s land. Burrough J said: ‘The Plaintiff was only a trespasser: if the Defendant . .
Cited – Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co 1856
. .
Cited – Bourhill v Young’s Executor HL 5-Aug-1942
When considering claims for damages for shock, the court only recognised the action lying where the injury by shock was sustained ‘through the medium of the eye or the ear without direct contact.’ Wright L said: ‘No doubt, it has long ago been . .
Cited – Buckland v Guildford Gas Light and Coke Co 1948
Whether someone is a trespasser vis-a-vis the occupier is relevant only to the foreseeability of his presence. . .
Cited – Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis HL 17-Feb-1955
The House considered the unexplained fact that in the temporary absence of the teacher (who, on the evidence, was not negligent) it was possible for a child of four to wander from the school premises onto the highway, through a gate which was either . .
Cited – Commissioner for Railways v McDermott PC 1966
. .
Cited – Commissioner for Railways v Quinlan PC 9-Mar-1964
(New South Wales) The plaintiff trespasser was hit by the occupier’s train. He succeeded at trial and on first appeal.
Held: A mere failure to exercise reasonable care was not a basis for claim by a trespasser, there must: ‘be injury due to . .
Cited – Commissioner for Railways (NSW ) v Cardy 1960
. .
Cited – Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland HL 1909
Lord Atkinson said: ‘The duty the owner of premises owes to the persons to whom he gives permission to enter upon them must . . be measured, by his knowledge, actual or imputed, of the habits, capacities and propensities of those persons.’ and ‘The . .
Cited – Creed v McGeoch and Sons Ltd 1955
The question of who is an occupier will depend on the particular facts of each case and especially upon the nature and extent of the occupation or control in fact enjoyed or exercised by the defendant over the premises. The defendant contractor was . .
Cited – Davis v St Mary’s Demolition and Excavation Co Ltd 1954
The defendants were demolishing some houses, behind which was an open space on which children were known to play. A child wandered onto the site and a wall fell causing injury.
Held: Although the plaintiff was a trespasser, the presence of . .
Cited – Deane v Clayton 1817
. .
Cited – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Cited – Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office HL 6-May-1970
A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers.
Held: Any duty of a borstal officer to use . .
Cited – Dunster v Abbott CA 1953
The court discussed the distinction between the liability of an occupier for the dangerous condition of his premises and the liability of an occupier in relation to dangerous activities carried out on his premises. Denning LJ said: ‘In this case . . . .
Cited – Edwards v Railway Executive HL 1952
A boy aged 9 was injured on a railway line. He had been warned not to go onto the land and had found his way through a defective fence. He claimed in negligence. The fence had been breached by children with some frequency for many years before the . .
Cited – Excelsior Wire Rope Co Ltd v Callan HL 1930
The House dismissed an appeal by an occupier of land against a finding that he was liable for an injury occasioned to a child trespassing on his land. . .
Cited – Gautret v Egerton 1867
A man fell to his death when crossing a bridge used with the consent and permission of the defendants by persons proceeding to and coming from the defendants’ docks.
Held: The claim by his widow against the bridge owner was dismissed.
Cited – Glasgow Corporation v Taylor HL 18-Nov-1921
A father brought an action for damages for the death of his son who had eaten poisonous berries growing in one of the defenders’ public parks. The plants were easily accessible from a children’s play area and it was said that the defender had a duty . .
Cited – Goldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966
(Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. The appellant had the tree cut down, but took no reasonable steps by spraying the fire with water to prevent the fire from spreading, believing that it would . .
Cited – Grand Trunk Railway Co of Canada v Barnett PC 28-Mar-1911
In an action against the appellant railroad company for damages for personal injuries resulting from collision caused by the negligence of the appellants’ servants it appeared that the collision took place on the property of the appellants to which . .
Cited – Haley v London Electricity Board HL 28-Jul-1964
Electricity undertakers owed a duty of care to blind persons as a class when they excavated a trench along a pavement in a London suburb because blind people foreseeably walk along pavements. . .
Cited – Hardy v Central London Railway Co CA 1920
. .
Cited – Hawkins v Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council CA 1954
Denning LJ suggested that there was a confluence between the laws applying to invitees and the laws applying to licensees.
Somervell LJ said: ‘reasonable foresight could not depend on ‘attributes which properly belong to a person of . .
Cited – Heaven v Pender, Trading As West India Graving Dock Company CA 30-Jul-1883
Duty Arising to Use Ordinary Care and Skill
The plaintiff was a painter. His employer engaged to repaint a ship, and the defendant erected staging to support the work. The staging collapsed because one of the ropes was singed and weakened, injuring the plaintiff.
Held: The defendant had . .
Cited – Hillen and Pettigrew v ICI (Alkali) Ltd HL 1936
Stevedores who were lawfully on a barge for the purpose of discharging it, nevertheless became trespassers when they went onto an inadequately supported hatch cover in order to unload some of the cargo. They knew that they ought not to use the . .
Cited – Holland v Lanarkshire Middle Ward District Committee 1909
Duty to fence a quarry. On a failure the land owner may be liable in damages. It was doubtful that a child would be liable in contributory negligence. . .
Cited – Ilott v Wilkes 1820
. .
Cited – Indermaur v Dames 1866
The court described as an occupier’s duty towards his invitees: ‘And, with respect to such a visitor at least, we consider it settled law, that he, using reasonable care on his part for his own safety, is entitled to expect that the occupier shall . .
Cited – Jay v Whitfield (Note) 1817
Liability for injury in trap. . .
Cited – Kingzett v British Railways Board 1968
. .
Cited – Latham v R Johnson and Nephew Ltd CA 12-Dec-1912
The defendants were owners of a plot of unfenced waste land from which old houses had been cleared. It did not adjoin any public highway, but was accessible by a path leading from the back of the house in which the plaintiff, a child between two and . .
Cited – Lowery v Walker HL 9-Nov-1910
A trespasser was injured by the land owner’s savage horse.
Held: If a land-owner knows of but does nothing to stop acts of trespass by the public on his land, there may be an implied license. Decision reversed. In Scottish courts the . .
Cited – Lynch v Nurdin 1841
The defendant’s servant left his cart and horse on a street where children were playing. A child climbed on the wheel of the cart, other children disturbed the horse, and the child was injured.
Held: The judge had correctly left it to the jury . .
Cited – McCarthy v Wellington City 1966
A person storing dangerous explosives on his premises owed a duty of care to keep them secure to all persons foreseeably likely to be injured as a result of a breach of that duty. . .
Cited – M’Glone v British Railways Board HL 27-Oct-1965
The appellant sought damages in respect of injuries suffered by his son who received a severe electrical shock, climbing on a booster transformer on premises occupied by the respondents. The First Division had held that the respondents were not . .
Cited – Miller v South of Scotland Electricity Board HL 1958
An employer should recognise that it is not possible to predict all the ways in which dangers may arise, especially where the risk is created by carelessness. The employer is liable even if he did not foresee the precise accident that happened. In . .
Cited – Mooney v Lanarkshire County Council 1954
. .
Cited – Morran v Waddell SCS 24-Oct-1883
Inner House First Division. – Reparation – Culpa – Railway – Private Line of Railway – Obligation to Fence – Contributory Negligence. . .
Cited – Moulton v Poulter CA 1930
The defendant land owner and occupier knew of the presence of the trespassing children.
Held: He was liable for injury to the trespassing child by a tree was felled negligently. The defendant had: ‘cut the last root by which the tree was . .
Cited – Munnings v Hydro-Electric Commission 1971
. .
Cited – Perry v Thomas Wrigley Ltd 1955
A trench dug in a road for its repair did not count as an allurement for passing children. . .
Cited – Prentice v Assets Co Ltd 1889
. .
Cited – Rich v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) 1959
The Board considered a claim arising from an accident occurring at a railway level crossing . .
Cited – Ross v Keith 1888
. .
Cited – Thompson v Bankstown Municipal Corporation 1953
(Australia) Occupier’s duty of care to a person to whom he already has a neighbour relationship. . .
Cited – United Zinc and Chemical Co v Britt 1922
There was no evidence of children being in the habit of going near the poisoned pool at issue. Speaking of trespassers, Holmes J said ‘the owner of the land would have owed no duty to remove even hidden danger; it would have been entitled to assume . .
Cited – Videan -v British Transport Commission CA 1963
The court was asked as to the duty of a land owner to a trespasser.
Held: At least in respect of his own activities an occupier owed the trespasser duty to take care not to injure a trespasser whose presence was foreseeable or reasonably to be . .
Cited – Munnings v Hydro-Electric Commission 1971
. .
Appeal from – British Railways Board v Herrington CA 1971
A duty to protect against obvious risks or self-inflicted harm exists only in cases in which there is no genuine and informed choice, such as the inability of children to recognise danger. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .
Cited – Regina v Stephenson CACD 1979
The defendant sought to sleep in a hollow in a haystack. He lit a fire, to keep warm, which set fire to the stack. He appealed against his conviction under the 1971 Act. He had a long history of schizophrenia and may not have had the same ability to . .
Cited – 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: . .
Cited – Wisniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority CA 1997
The court considered the effect of a party failing to bring evidence in support of its case, as regards the court drawing inferences: ‘(1) In certain circumstances a court may be entitled to draw adverse inferences from the absence or silence of a . .
Cited – Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .
Cited – Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another Admn 26-Apr-2005
Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of . .
Cited – Crawford v Financial Institutions Services Ltd PC 2-Nov-2005
(Jamaica) The government had intervened in banking institutions under the control of the appellant. Subsequently orders had been made against him for compensation in respect of loans made negligently or otherwise than in accordance with good banking . .
Cited – Hardy v Washington Green Fine Art Publishing Company Ltd CA 9-Mar-2010
The claimant’s husband had bought a Rolf Harris picture from an art gallery, but left it with them for safe keeping. The gallery was said to have been taken over by the defendants. The painting was noticed to be missing but the claimant was not . .
Cited – Earles v Barclays Bank plc Merc 8-Oct-2009
earles_barclaysQBD2009
The claimant had lost his claim against the bank, but resisted the amount of costs claimed.
Held: The trial had been of a simple factual dispute, and the bank had failed adequately to disclose electronically held material in its possession. . .
Cited – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .
Cited – Harris v Birkenhead Corporation CA 12-Nov-1975
A four year old child had fallen from a second-story window in a derelict house owned by the defendant, and suffered serious injury. The house and others had been purchased by compulsion for intended clearance. The Corporation appealed against a . .
Cited – Ovu v London Underground Ltd (Duty of Care) QBD 13-Oct-2021
Safety of Stairs within Undergrounds Care of duty
The Claimant sued the London Underground company because their relative Mr Ovu died after falling down stairs on a fire escape. It was late at night and he wandered on his own on a cold night, outdoors, onto the stairs. The staircase was in good . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Personal Injury, Nuisance, Children, Negligence, Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.174315

Holland v Lanarkshire Middle Ward District Committee: 1909

Duty to fence a quarry. On a failure the land owner may be liable in damages. It was doubtful that a child would be liable in contributory negligence.

Lord President Dunedin, Lord Kinnear
1909 SC 1142
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.181274

Mortgages 1 Ltd v Shaida Ahmed Chaudhary: ScSf 14 Nov 2013

‘The pursuers seek warrant in terms of section 24 of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 in respect of the property at [address] and an order for removing in terms of section 5 of the Heritable Securities (Scotland) Act 1894
Held: The Sheriff Principal, having heard parties, allows the appeal and recalls the sheriff’s interlocutor of 6 June 2013 complained of; remits the cause to the sheriff’s By Order Roll to proceed as accords; finds the defender and appellant liable to the pursuers and respondents in the expenses of the appeal; allows an account to be given and remits same when lodged to the auditor of court to tax and to report.’

[2013] ScotSC 109
Bailii
Heritable Securities (Scotland) Act 1894, Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 24
Scotland

Land

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519720

Nugent v Nugent: ChD 20 Dec 2013

The court was asked whether the court has, following the the 2002 Act, an inherent power to order the cancellation of a unilateral notice registered against a title registered under the 2002 Act and, if so, in what circumstances, and how, such a power should be exercised.
Held: It did have that power. The power was akin to that pertaining to the vacation of cautions registered under the Land Registration Act 1925. Though the 1925 Act had been replaced, in this aspect the law remained substatntially the same, and cases under the former Acts might be applied.
Morgan J asked himself: ‘Was the beneficiary of the register entry entitled to say that the statute permitted such an entry where the alleged facts supported it and whether the facts were as alleged could only be determined at a trial? Was the beneficiary therefore entitled to maintain the entry until trial irrespective of whether the entry would cause uncompensatable prejudice to the owner of the land?’, and answered: ‘I conclude that the jurisdiction, recognised and developed by the courts, in relation to the vacation of cautions registered under the LRA 1925, applies also in relation to unilateral notices registered under the 2002 Act. That jurisdiction applied in different ways in relation to cautions to protect claims which were unsustainable and in relation to cautions to protect claims which were well arguable. In the present case, on the material before me, David Nugent’s claim is well arguable. Accordingly, I cannot order the cancellation of the unilateral notice on the ground that his claim is without substance. The earlier cases where the underlying claim was well arguable only went so far as to require an undertaking in damages from the beneficiary of the caution, as a condition of keeping the caution in place. However, the clear philosophy of those cases was that the court should not allow the beneficiary of the notice to have the protection of the notice pending trial without the court considering the position of the registered proprietor and whether, and if so how, the proprietor should be protected pending trial. The court proceeded on the basis of an analogy with the position it would adopt if the beneficiary of the notice had, instead of registering a notice, applied for an interim injunction. I will therefore consider, in accordance with the philosophy in the earlier cases what the court would do, as between these parties, if David Nugent applied for an interim injunction pending trial and, in that context, I will take into account any adverse effect on Mrs Nugent of the court granting such an injunction.’

Morgan J
[2014] 3 WLR 59, [2014] 2 All ER 313, [2013] EWHC 4095 (Ch), [2013] WLR (D) 516
Bailii, WLRD
Land Registration Act 2002, Land Charges Act 1925, Land Registration Act 1925
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Clearbrook Property Holdings Limited v Verrier ChD 1974
The issue was whether a caution registered in the Land Registry by a plaintiff purchaser who was claiming specific performance of an agreement for sale should be vacated. The effect of the vacation of the caution was that the plaintiff’s claim for . .
Cited – Fitzroy Development Ltd v Fitzrovia Properties Ltd ChD 2011
A person with a reasonably arguable case in support of the existence of the interest claimed had ‘reasonable cause’ to enter a unilateral notice against a registered title to protect such an interest, even where a court later ruled against the . .
Cited – Tiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd CA 1975
“Subject to Contract” not to be diluted
‘subject to contract’ proposals remain in negotiation until a formal contract is executed. Lord Denning MR said: ‘for over a hundred years, the courts have held that the effect of the words ‘subject to contract’ is that the matter remains in . .
Cited – American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
Cited – Gillett v Holt and Another CA 23-Mar-2000
Repeated Assurances Created Equitable Estoppel
Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
Cited – Thorner v Major and others HL 25-Mar-2009
The deceased had made a will including a gift to the claimant, but had then revoked the will. The claimant asserted that an estoppel had been created in his favour over a farm, and that the defendant administrators of the promisor’s estate held it . .
Cited – Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc 1993
The court laid down tests for the granting of mandatory interim injunctions. The court should consider whether there was a high degree of confidence that the applicant would succeed in establishing his right at trial. The higher that confidence, the . .
Mentioned – Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc CA 1995
Dictum at first instance approved. . .
Cited – Heywood v BDC Properties Ltd (No 2) CA 1964
The registration of an action as a lis pendens by a non-counterclaiming defendant was held to be an abuse, and although there was no jurisdiction to vacate the registration under the Land Charges Act 1925, the Court had an inherent jurisdiction to . .
Cited – Heywood v BDC Properties Ltd (No 1) CA 1963
The registration of a claim was founded on negotiations through correspondence. The Court examined the correspondence, and found that it was clear that there was no possible binding contract existing between the parties, vacated the registration. It . .
Cited – Taylor v Taylor CA 1968
Mrs T, by summons under section 17 sought a declaration that she and her husband were beneficial owners in equal shares of the matrimonial home and that the premises should be sold and the proceeds divided equally between them. She registered a lis . .
Cited – The Rawlplug Co Ltd v Kamvale Properties Ltd ChD 1969
Megarry J said: ‘to effect registration of a . . caution is an easy matter, and . . to do so will usually effectually inhibit any disposition of the land so long as the registration remains effective. Registration may, therefore, become a weapon of . .
Cited – Calgary and Edmonton Land Co Ltd v Discount Bank (Overseas) Ltd ChD 1971
Cautions had been registered against land to protect interests claimed in a pending action. The action had been struck out at first instance, an appeal to the Court of Appeal had failed but a petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was . .
Cited – Lester v Burgess 1973
. .
Cited – Clearbrook Property Holdings Limited v Verrier ChD 1974
The issue was whether a caution registered in the Land Registry by a plaintiff purchaser who was claiming specific performance of an agreement for sale should be vacated. The effect of the vacation of the caution was that the plaintiff’s claim for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Land

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519348

Ratcliff v McConnell and Jones: CA 30 Nov 1998

The claimant, a nineteen year old student climbed into a college property in the early hours of the morning, and then took a running dive into the shallow end of a swimming pool, suffering severe injuries. He was accompanied by friends and had been drinking, though he was not drunk.
Held: A trespasser having climbed into grounds at night and dived into a swimming pool without knowing the depth accepted responsibility for his own acts. The dangers of diving into shallow water were known to adults and there was no need for a warning. The existence of a duty had to be determined by reference to the likelihood of the trespasser’s presence in the vicinity of the danger at the actual time and place of danger to him.
The Act did not include the duty to safeguard the claimant from the consequences of his own folly.
Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘It is unfortunate that a number of high-spirited young men will take serious risks with their own safety and do things that they know are forbidden, Often they are disinhibited by drink and the encouragement of friends. It is the danger and the fact that it is forbidden that provides the thrill. But if the risk materialises they cannot blame others for their rashness.’

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Mummery
Times 03-Dec-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 670, [1997] EWCA Civ 2679
Bailii
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Limited CA 27-Feb-2003
The claimant had decided to go for a midnight swim, but was injured diving and hitting a submerged bed. The landowner appealed a finding that it was 25% liable. The claimant asserted that the defendant knew that swimmers were common.
Held: The . .
Cited – Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another Admn 26-Apr-2005
Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of . .
Cited – Ovu v London Underground Ltd (Duty of Care) QBD 13-Oct-2021
Safety of Stairs within Undergrounds Care of duty
The Claimant sued the London Underground company because their relative Mr Ovu died after falling down stairs on a fire escape. It was late at night and he wandered on his own on a cold night, outdoors, onto the stairs. The staircase was in good . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Land, Negligence

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.136077

Spearman v Royal United Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 4 Dec 2017

The Claimant suffered a hypoglycaemic attack (being Type 1 diabetic) and was taken by ambulance to the Hospital, arriving at 22.00 hours. Within 15 minutes, he had left the emergency department of the hospital, climbed five flights of stairs to a flat roof, climbed over a protective barrier and either fallen or jumped into a courtyard below where he suffered serious injuries.
The issue for decision is whether this accident occurred as a result of the breach of duty of the defendant whether owed to the Claimant under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and/or the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 or at Common Law, or whether the Claimant was the author of his own misfortune.

Martin Spencer J
[2017] EWHC 3027 (QB)
Bailii
Occupiers Liability Act 1957, Occupiers Liability Act 1984
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ovu v London Underground Ltd (Duty of Care) QBD 13-Oct-2021
Safety of Stairs within Undergrounds Care of duty
The Claimant sued the London Underground company because their relative Mr Ovu died after falling down stairs on a fire escape. It was late at night and he wandered on his own on a cold night, outdoors, onto the stairs. The staircase was in good . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Personal Injury

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.601123

Braithwaite v South Durham Steel Co Ltd and Another: QBD 1958

The Plaintiff was employed by South Durham Steel as a crane driver’s mate and he was preceding a mobile crane along a railway line. Another line, in the ownership of the British Transport Commission (BTC), and not his employers, ran alongside and was very close by. At some point while walking he inadvertently put his foot a few inches over the sleepers, and was struck by oncoming traffic on the line when he was startled by a warning should from the crane driver. BTC argued he was a trespasser at the moment of the accident, and that absent a reckless or deliberate act to harm him, no other duty was owed.
Held the Claimant had placed his foot onto the BTC’s land and did not have permission to do so, but even so held that it was unrealistic and artificial on the facts of the case, where he was a licensee on part of the walkway and his encroachment was wholly inadvertent, to find that his involuntary encroachment onto the BTC’s land made him a trespasser.
Mr Justice Edmund Davies said this: ‘Even so, the submissions of learned Counsel . . appears to me to be unrealistic when it is thought to be applied to the facts of this case, namely, that (a) the plaintiff was a licensee in the walkway, and (b) his encroachment of a few inches over or upon the sleepers of the commission’s line was only inadvertent and involuntary and the result of his startled turnabout as a result of the warning shout . . ‘

Mr Justice Edmund Davies
[1958] 1 WLR 986
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ovu v London Underground Ltd (Duty of Care) QBD 13-Oct-2021
Safety of Stairs within Undergrounds Care of duty
The Claimant sued the London Underground company because their relative Mr Ovu died after falling down stairs on a fire escape. It was late at night and he wandered on his own on a cold night, outdoors, onto the stairs. The staircase was in good . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.670075

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure v St Martins Property Investments and Another: UTLC 8 Oct 2021

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS CODE – INTERIM CODE RIGHTS – access for multi-skilled visit – whether freeholder need be bound by interim rights – whether right to undertake destructive investigations to be granted at first hearing – terms of agreement – costs

[2021] UKUT 262 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.669244

Snelling and Another v Burstow Parish Council: CA 12 Nov 2013

Appeal by allotment holders against rejection of objection to proposed sale of allotments for development.
Held: The requirement under section 8 of the 1925 Act to obtain the Minister’s consent does not apply to all land which is in fact used as allotments. It applies only to land which has been ‘purchased or appropriated’ for that purpose

Patten, Treacy, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1411, [2013] WLR(D) 433, [2014] 1 WLR 2388, [2013] 47 EG 129
Bailii, WLRD
Commons Act 1876, Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908, Allotments Act 1925 8
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Adamson, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council CA 18-Feb-2020
Appropriation was not in sufficient form
The claimants had challenged an order supporting the decision of the Council to use their allotments for a new primary school, saying that the land had be appropriated as allotment land, and that therefore the consent of the minister was needed.
Landlord and Tenant, Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517650

Nottingham City Council v Tyas: UTLC 3 Oct 2013

UTLC HOUSING – ENFORCEMENT ACTION – improvement notice – request for extension of time to appeal – criteria to be applied – para. 14(3), Sch. 1, Housing Act 2004 – proof of service by post – s. 233, Local Government Act 1972 – s. 7, Interpretation Act 1978 – appeal allowed

Martin Rodger QC, DP
[2013] UKUT 492 (LC)
Bailii
Housing Act 2004, Local Government Act 1972 233, Interpretation Act 1978 7
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517604