Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Land - From: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 160 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Bristol and West Building Society v Baden Barnes and Groves [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 788
2000
CA

Limitation, Land, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence
cw Proposed amendments to a plaintiff's pleadings failed to prevent a striking out. The amendments either sought to advance by a different route the earlier claim which was bound to fail, or sought to introduce a new cause of action which was statute barred and did not derive from the same, or substantially the same, facts.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hair v Gillman [2000] 3 EGLR 76
2000


Land

1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Stevenson v Johnson [2000] EW CA Civ
2000
CA
Bennett LJ
Land
The court looked at what was necessary to suggest the compromise of a land dispute: "In summary, in my judgment, the judge was right to find an agreement between Mr Vane and the defendants. It is not strictly necessary for a court to have to find an offer and an acceptance. The course of the parties’ conduct, that is to say, Mr Vane and the defendants, should be looked at and if, on the balance of probabilities, an agreement is established, that is sufficient. In my judgment, the conduct of Mr Vane and the defendants does establish such an agreement.”
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hare v Gilman and another [2000] 80 P&CR 108
2000


Land

1 Citers


 
Re Jilla's Application [2000] 2 EGLR 99
2000


Land

1 Citers


 
Clarke v Highways Agency [2000] EWLands LCA_92_1999
10 Jan 2000
LT

Land
COMPENSATION - claim under Part 1 of Land Compensation Act 1973 - residential dwelling- injurious affection- effects of noise, vibration, smell, fumes and the discharge on to the land of liquid substances, following construction of a new road bridge adjacent to the property. Compensation awarded £600.
Land Compensation Act 1973
[ Bailii ]

 
 Buckland and Buckland and Capel v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions; Admn 11-Jan-2000 - Times, 10 February 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 279; [2000] 1 WLR 1949
 
Global Financial Recoveries Ltd v Jones Gazette, 13 January 2000; Times, 23 February 2000; [2000] BPIR 1029
13 Jan 2000
ChD

Limitation, Land, Banking, Limitation
The defendant entered into a mortgage loan. The property was repossessed and he faced an action for recovery of the shortfall. It was argued that the claim was out of time after six years. The court held that the debt remained a specialty debt and the twelve year period applied, but nevertheless, the actual claimant claimed under an assignment which had assigned only the personal element of the debt, but not the benefit of the covenant within the mortgage deed. An assignment of the debt alone operated to assign that debt, and not the right given under the mortgage, and so a claim under the assignment was limited as under contract.
Limitation Act 1980
1 Citers


 
Nicholls v Highways Agency [2000] EWLands ACQ_141_1997
14 Jan 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
F Cross and Sons Ltd v Spencer (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_20_1998
17 Jan 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
F Cross and Sons Ltd v Spencer (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_19_1998
17 Jan 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
F Cross and Sons Ltd v Spencer (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_21_1998
17 Jan 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
F Cross and Sons Ltd v Spencer (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_22_1998
17 Jan 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Speedwell Estates Ltd, Re [2000] EWLands LRA_30_1999
17 Jan 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Target Home Loans Ltd v Iza Ltd Gazette, 20 January 2000
20 Jan 2000
CC

Landlord and Tenant, Land
(Central London County Court) The bank recovered possession of leasehold premises. The landlord served a notice requiring repairs on the tenant, but refused to allow the mortgage in possession a key to enter the property. They then claimed to have recovered possession peacefully. The bank applied for relief from forfeiture and succeeded. The notice was pointlessly served on the tenant who no longer had access to carry out any repairs, and the counter-notice was effective.
Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938

 
Regina v Anglian Water Servies, ex Parte Three Valleys Water Plc Gazette, 20 January 2000
20 Jan 2000
QBD

Land, Environment, Utilities
The respondent was successor to the owners of a reservoir, and the applicants sought to increase the amount of water they could draw daily. It was agreed that the respondent was not a statutory water undertaker, and the extent of the applicants right of supply was governed by the Act establishing the right to draw water. Still, the applicants were not entitled to the full amount of water supply they sought.


 
 John Trevelyan (Suing on Behalf of Himself and All Other Members of Ramblers Association) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Admn 24-Jan-2000 - Gazette, 20 April 2001; Times, 22 March 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 282
 
Ladjadj and Another v Governor and Co of Bank of Scotland [2000] EWCA Civ 21
28 Jan 2000
CA
Swinton Thomas, Robert Walker, Laws LJJ
Land
Appeal against order for possession in proceedings brought by mortgagee bank.
[ Bailii ]
 
Berrill (T/A Cobweb Antiques) v Hill (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_34_1999
2 Feb 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Dutton and Dutton v Dutton and Brown [2000] EWHC Ch 167
3 Feb 2000
ChD
Honourable Mrs Justice Arden DBE
Wills and Probate, Land
An option was granted by the will. Its validity was challenged because of difficulties in the method of reaching a valuation. It was occupied and it could not be agreed whether an assumption was to be made that the occupier would consent to the sale.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Parochial Church Council of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote With Billesby, Warwickshire and Another; ChD 7-Feb-2000 - Gazette, 28 April 2000; Times, 30 March 2000
 
Adam v Woking Borough Council [2000] EWLands LCA_88_1999
7 Feb 2000
LT

Land
COMPENSATION - Disturbance - rehousing following Closing Order - claim for disputed items - kennelling costs - loss of garden equipment and plants, cooker and fridge, use of garage - loss on forced sale of car - temporary accommodation -- increased travel costs - interest on loans - expenses - Land Compensation Act 1973 Section 38. Compensation of pounds 400 awarded.
[ Bailii ]
 
Struggles and others v Lloyds TSB plc Gazette, 10 February 2000
10 Feb 2000
TCC

Land, Banking
A mineral quarry was repossessed under a mortgage and attempts were made to sell it. A claim that it had been sold at an undervalue was defeated. The valuation of such an asset was to make allowance for capitalisation of the income stream from mineral royalties. The sale of the property had been delayed long enough to allow a proper valuation, and a further sale would have put the bank at risk of other allegations. The bank had obtained the best price reasonably obtainable.

 
Ryde International Plc v London Regional Transport [2000] EWLands ACQ_147_2000
12 Feb 2000
LT

Land
LT COMPENSATION - Compulsory acquisition of a development of flats and bungalows, constructed as sheltered accommodation for the elderly - open market value - whether units would have been sold individually or to a single purchaser - assessment of holding costs - interim decision - compensation awarded £2,060,000
[ Bailii ]
 
Hooper v City and County of Swansea [2000] EWLands ACQ_68_1997
15 Feb 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Mooney v West Lindsey District Council [2000] EWLands LCA_98_1999
16 Feb 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Visible Information Packaged Systems Ltd and Another v Wilson [2000] EWLands LRA_37_1998
16 Feb 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex Parte Plymouth City Airport Gazette, 17 February 2000
17 Feb 2000
QBD

Land
The airport was the operator liable for compensation. The apron was extended to allow for two helicopters to be based at the airport, and a neighbouring householder claimed compensation for loss to the value of his house. Whether the development was substantial, was not absolute, but relative to the size of the airport, and the important time was the time of the development works. The certificate from the Secretary of State that the works were apron alterations stood.


 
 Newell and others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another; Fletcher Estates (Harlescott) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another; HL 17-Feb-2000 - Times, 23 February 2000; Gazette, 02 March 2000; [2000] UKHL 10; [2000] 2 AC 307; [2000] 1 All ER 929; [2000] 2 WLR 438
 
Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another v Scarborough Borough Council Times, 02 March 2000; Gazette, 02 March 2000; Gazette, 16 March 2000; [2000] QB 836; [2000] EWCA Civ 51; [2000] 2 All ER 705
22 Feb 2000
CA
Stuart-Smith LJ
Land, Torts - Other, Nuisance
Land owned by the defendant was below a cliff, at the top of which was the claimant's hotel. The land slipped, and the hotel collapsed. Some landslip was foreseen from natural causes, but not to the extent of this occasion. Held. The owner of a servient tenement was under a duty to take positive steps to provide support for a neighbour's land. There was no difference in principle between the danger caused by loss of support and any other hazard or nuisance on the Defendant's land, such as the encroachment of some obnoxious thing, which affected the Claimant's use and enjoyment of his land. Where the question was not whether the Defendant had created the nuisance but whether he had adopted or continued it, there was no reason why different principles should apply to one kind of nuisance rather than another. In each case, liability only arose if there was negligence and the duty to abate the nuisance arose from the Defendant's knowledge of the hazard which would affect his neighbour. The owner of the lower land would be liable where the condition was known, or deemed to be known, and the damage was reasonably foreseeable. Where however the damage was so extensive as not to be foreseeable, liability was not established.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance; ChD 22-Feb-2000 - Times, 22 February 2000
 
Scottish and Newcastle Retail Ltd v Williams (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_480_1993
22 Feb 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Shaire and Another Gazette, 16 March 2000; Times, 21 March 2000; [2000] 1 FLR 973; [2001] Ch 743; [2000] EWHC Ch 452
25 Feb 2000
ChD
Neuberger J
Land, Banking, Trusts
The claimant had an equitable charge over the property, and sought a possession order after failures to keep up repayments. The order was sought under the Act, and the claimants asserted that the conditions for the grant of possession were unchanged. Held: Parliament had clearly intended a change. The interests of a chargee ranked alongside those of, for example, children living in the house. This might act to the detriment of banks, and the old authorities, whilst not entirely irrelevant, should be viewed with caution. Where the parties have reached a consensus on the beneficial interests in the property, the court will give effect to it, unless there is very good reason for not doing so, such as a subsequent renegotiation.
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14 15 - Law of Property Act 1925 30
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Christie v Hudson (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_33_1999
25 Feb 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Smith v Highway Agency [2000] EWLands LCA_123_1999
25 Feb 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
(Un-named) [2000] EWLands ACQ_90_1999
25 Feb 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
North East Fife District Council v Nisbet and Pont Or Nisbet [2000] ScotCS 47
25 Feb 2000
SCS
Lord Coulsfield
Land
Application for declaration as to the existence of a right of way for pedestrian traffic.
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another v Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd Times, 08 March 2000; Gazette, 09 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 60; [2001] QB 59; [2000] 2 PLR 84
25 Feb 2000
CA

Land, Planning
The meaning of 'curtilage' whilst not strictly a term of art had caused considerable difficulties. There was nothing inherent in the concept to imply any limitation that the area should be small. In this case the curtilage of a manor house could clearly include stable houses 200 meters from the main house. Accordingly those buildings were included within the property subject to the listed buildings order. The general legislative purpose of both regimes is the protection of the national heritage, and the particular purpose of the extending provisions is to ensure that not only the heritage property itself, but also its fixtures and its environment, are protected.
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 - Ancient Monuments and Archeological Areas Act 1979 61(7)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Herkanaidu v Lambeth London Borough Council Times, 28 February 2000
28 Feb 2000
ChD

Land
The existence of a local land charge was not a matter going to the title of the property, but was something to be dealt with properly and simply in the normal course of the conveyancing process, and so could not be used as founding the right of a vendor unwilling to remove the charge, to rescind the contract. In any event, in this case, the request by the vendor for further time to comply with the request operated to remove any right to rescission.

 
Regina v Braintree District Council, ex parte Malcolm William Halls Times, 15 March 2000; (2000) 32 HLR 770
1 Mar 2000
CA
Laws LJ, Jonathan Parker LK, Evans LJ
Local Government, Housing, Land
When selling a house to its tenant under the right to buy legislation, the council had imposed a restrictive covenant preventing the new owner developing the land by further building. The purchaser later approached the council for its release so as to allow further building. He had obtained planning permission for the proposed development. When the council refused, the surviving purchaser sought judicial review of that refusal. Held: The purchaser's appeal succeeded. The council had confirmed that the property had been sold at its full market value, without any adjustment to reflect any possible development value, but then adjusted with the appropiate discount. The council now said that it had imposed the covenant in order to retain to itself any development value. It is established law that a council may act under any Act only for purposes allowed by that enabling Act. Despite its assertion, the council had not imposed the covenant with a view to assist in making the properties more affordable generally. The Act set out the elements to be considered in setting the valuation. The purpose of reserving any development value to itself was not one permitted by the Act under which it had been sold. The purpose of the Act was to permit former tenants to enjoy the full range of benefits of land ownership as were enjoyed by other land owners. What was reasonable was what would be reasonable to both parties, not just one. The council might reserve rights which properly affected its remaining estate, for example in the control of noise or other nuisance, but this was not such a purpose. The restrictive covenant was void and the council could not demand any payment for its removal.
Laws LJ considered the principle in Padfield: "The rule is not that the exercise of the power is only to be condemned if it is incapable of promoting the Act's policy, rather the question always is: what was the decision-maker's purpose in the instant case and was it calculated to promote the policy of the Act?"
Housing Act 1985 127(2) Sch6 para 5
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Coupar v London Borough of Newham [2000] EWLands ACQ_59_1999
3 Mar 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]

 
 Willingale v Global Grange Ltd; CA 13-Mar-2000 - Gazette, 23 March 2000; Times, 29 March 2000; [2000] 2 EGLR 55
 
Unknown v Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_62_1999
14 Mar 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
J A Pye and Another v Graham and Another Gazette, 17 February 2000; Gazette, 24 February 2000; Times, 14 March 2000; [2000] Ch 676; [2000] 3 All ER 865
14 Mar 2000
ChD
Neuberger J
Agriculture, Land, Limitation
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 sufficient animus was then established. The reference in the section to the taking of action did not apply to an application to warn off the cautions made to the Land Registry which was not a court, and the application was not an application to recover land. Since the Grahams enjoyed factual possession of the land from January 1984, and adverse possession took effect from September 1984, the applicant company's title was extinguished pursuant to the 1980 Act, and the Grahams were entitled to be registered as proprietors of the land. "[The Grahams] sought rights to graze or cut grass on the land after the summer of 1984, and were quite prepared to pay. When Pye failed to respond they did what any other farmer in their position would have done: they continued to farm the land. They were not at fault. But the result of Pye's inaction was that they enjoyed the full use of the land without payment for 12 years. As if that were not gain enough, they are then rewarded by obtaining title to this considerable area of valuable land without any obligation to compensate the former owner in any way at all. In the case of unregistered land, and in the days before registration became the norm, such a result could no doubt be justified as avoiding protracted uncertainty where the title to land lay. But where land is registered it is difficult to see any justification for a legal rule which compels such an apparently unjust result, and even harder to see why the party gaining title should not be required to pay some compensation at least to the party losing it. It is reassuring to learn that the Land Registration Act 2002 has addressed the risk that a registered owner may lose his title through inadvertence. But the main provisions of that Act have not yet been brought into effect, and even if they had it would not assist Pye, whose title had been lost before the passing of the Act. While I am satisfied that the appeal must be allowed for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, this is a conclusion which I (like the judge [Neuberger J]...) 'arrive at with no enthusiasm'.”
Limitation Act 1980 15(1) 17
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Dunnetts (Birmingham) Ltd v Gutt (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_28_1999
15 Mar 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]

 
 Pollard and Another v Ashurst; ChD 16-Mar-2000 - Times, 16 March 2000
 
London Borough of Lambeth v Vincent and Others Gazette, 16 March 2000; Times, 29 March 2000
16 Mar 2000
ChD

Land
The buyers agreed to purchase a property at auction, but having failed to complete they were served with a notice to complete. They challenged that notice saying there was an outstanding writ for possession against the property, and that ministerial consent had not been obtained for the sale. It was held that the claim for forfeiture did not bring the lease to an end, and in this case was clearly unsustainable in law. Nor did the lack of ministerial consent vitiate the lease. The challenges did not go to title and the notice to complete stood.
Housing Act 1985 32 (3)

 
Lillis v North West Water Ltd [2000] EWLands LCA_131_1997
16 Mar 2000
LT

Land, Utilities
LT COMPULSORY PURCHASE - Compensation - laying of water main in private land - Water Industry Act 1991 - claim withdrawn - costs - claimant to pay compensating authority's costs of reference in all but preliminary issue (no award) and Order of 8 February 2000 (compensating authority to pay).
Water Industry Act 1991
[ Bailii ]
 
Munro and Another v Premier Associates Ltd Gazette, 16 March 2000
16 Mar 2000
ChD

Land, Contract
Property was agreed to be sold, but the land certificate was lost. A condition was added to the contract fixing the completion date as three days after notification of receipt of the new certificate. The parties agreed a date in anticipation of the certificate being received, but the purchaser did not wish to proceed for other reasons. A completion notice was served which he challenged, saying the notice had not been given. It was held that parties to such transactions were as much bound by estoppel and waiver as otherwise. The behaviour of the parties created such and the notice was effective.

 
Jenmain Builders and Others v Steed and Steed (A Firm) Gazette, 30 March 2000; 2000 BNLR 616
20 Mar 2000
CA
Chadwick LJ
Professional Negligence, Land, Damages
The defendant firm of solicitors acted on the sale of property, but failed to notify a purchaser that he was in a contract race and that another contract had been sent out. The claimant would have been able to exchange, and to have acquired the property. Held: The defendants had failed to follow their own professional rules and were liable, even though in this case the damages were minimal in the absence of any proof of loss of profits.
Chadwick LJ said:- "This was a property with development potential. It is common ground that this property was no longer to be used as a village hall. It would have to be used for some other purpose; and there would have to be some development so that it could be used for that purpose. The question was: for what development could planning permission be obtained and how valuable would the property be on completion of that development? But those are the factors which a properly informed market will take into account in fixing the market value of property. The profit potential of the property is an element to be taken into account in fixing its market value. It is not suggested that there was anything special about this property to the appellants as purchasers. It is not suggested that there were not other developers in the market for property of this nature who could have made a proper assessment of the value of this property. The problem for the appellants in the present case is that they never sought to persuade the judge - and never adduced evidence to establish - that the market value of this property, Dukes Hall, was anything greater than the £67,500 which the Parish Council was seeking. It is for those reasons that the claim for loss of profits is one which the court could not entertain in this case. . . In the present case, there is no evidence that these appellants would not have been able to purchase other property in the market which they could develop profitably with the use of the money which they did not lay out in the purchase of Dukes Hall. There is no evidence that the respondents, insofar as their duty lay in contract, were aware of any special circumstances which made it impossible for the respondents to employ their funds in the ordinary course of their business, or of any circumstances which suggested that this property was being sold at an under-value. Indeed, in the circumstances that they were acting for the vendors, the Parish Council, it would be most unlikely that they would regard the property as being sold at an under- value rather than at market price".
1 Citers


 
Rt Hon Herbert Robert Cayzer Baron Rotherwick, Executors of the Estate of v Oxfordshire County Council [2000] EWLands LCA_43_1999
21 Mar 2000
LT

Land
LT COMPENSATION - limitation of actions - footpath creation order under Highways Act 1980 section 28 - Limitation Act 1980 sections 9 and 39 - estoppel by convention - parties negotiating outside limitation period on basis that claim enforceable - notice given of compensating authority's intention to take limitation point - claim held to be subject to Limitation Act - compensating authority held to be estopped until opportunity given to claimant to make reference - claimant failing to make reference within reasonable time after notice of authority's reliance on Limitation Act - claim dismissed.
Limitation Act 1980
[ Bailii ]
 
Unknown v Newport County Borough Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_102_1999
23 Mar 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Wilkinson v Chief Adjudication Officer [2000] EWCA Civ 88
24 Mar 2000
CA
Lord Justice Evans, Lord Justice Potter and Lord Justice Mummery
Land, Benefits
The claimant owned a half share in a property. It was said that this brought her disposable capital above the limit to make a claim. She had inherited it, but had transferred it to her brother in satisfaction of her mother's wishes.
Income Support (General) Regulations 1987
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
John Lyon's Charity v Shalson [2000] EWLands LRA_7_2000
26 Mar 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Bistern Estate Trust, Re LRA/27/1999; [2000] EWLands LRA_27_1999
27 Mar 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Wandsworth v Griffin and Another [2000] EWLands LRX_40_1999
27 Mar 2000
LT

Land
LT SERVICE CHARGE - Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s19 - Block of flats forming part of local authority estate - replacement of flat roof with pitched roof - replacement of metal framed windows with uPVC double glazed windows - whether costs reasonably incurred - cost in use calculations indicated proposed works offered better value for money over life of building - Decision: cost of such works reasonably incurred - appeal allowed.
[ Bailii ]
 
X v A, B, C [2000] EWHC Ch 121
29 Mar 2000
ChD

Land, Nuisance, Environment, Trusts
Trustees sought guidance from the court as to investment in land which might become a liability because of clean up costs associated with the Act when it came into force. Would the trustees have a lien over other property of the deceased to pay the costs? Held: A trustee has a lien over the trust fund for his proper costs and expenses extending to an indemnity against all future liabilities of the trustee as such. The wide powers of investment did not displace the duty to act with prudence and fairly as between the beneficiaries. Whilst the trustees may not be obliged to act under the direction of the beneficiaries it remained proper to require the trustees to consult with them on such decisions.
Environmental Protection Act 1990
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bhattacharjee v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council; LT 30-Mar-2000 - [2000] EWLands ACQ_10_1999
 
Franks and Faith (T/A Ground Rent Securities) v Towse [2000] EWLands LRA_2_1999
4 Apr 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Franks and Faith (T/A Ground Rent Securities) v Towse [2000] EWLands LRA_31_1999
4 Apr 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Countryside Residential (North Thames) Ltd v Tugwell Gazette, 28 April 2000; Times, 04 April 2000; (2001) 81 P&C R 10
4 Apr 2000
CA
Aldous and Waller LJJ and Rougier J
Land, Litigation Practice
A company was granted a licence to enter on land, for surveys and technical investigations, with a view eventually to its purchase. The land was occupied by protesters, and the company sought an injunction to exclude them. It was held that the licence did not give a right to occupy the land to the exclusion of others, and therefore, they had insufficient degree of occupation of the land to found an application to exclude the protesters. Something beyond just the right to enter the land is required. "he places emphasis on the fact that the right is to enter and occupy. It seems to me that there is a clear difference between a licence granted for the purpose of access, which does not provide effective control over the land, and a license to occupy which does."
Rules of the Supreme Court Order 113
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5-Apr-2000 - Gazette, 05 May 2000; Times, 12 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 106; [2000] 1 WLR 2383; [2000] RTR 27; [2000] 4 All ER 169
 
Hampshire County Council v Gillingham and Gillingham [2000] EWCA Civ 105
5 Apr 2000
CA
Brooke LJ, Sedley LJ
Land
The council obtained a county court order against the defendants to remove a wooden gate and concrete hanging post, and an injunction prohibiting them from placing a gate, fence or other obstruction on a public footpath. Attempting to defuse the dispute, the council had written appearing suggesting that an 8 foot gap was provided for public use. The county court judge held that the public were entitled to the full width of the footpath. The council were not estopped from asserting the rights of the public; any acquiescence by them in unlawful obstruction of footpaths and rights of way could not affect the position. At a point where the track was 16 feet 6 inches wide, the defendants maintained that there was an 8 feet wide gap between the gate and the opposite hedge. The judge rejected that, since the gate and concrete post there obstructed the public from enjoying the full width of the footpath. Held. Once the judge was satisfied that the defendants had obstructed a public footpath, he was entitled to order them to take the gate and concrete post down "so that the public could enjoy their rights without obstruction". As to estoppel, the mere consent of a highway authority to an obstruction on the highway was ineffectual for the purposes of legalising it, and where a statute, like section 130 of the 1980 Act, enacted for the benefit of a section of the public, imposed a duty of a positive kind, the person charged with the performance of the duty could not by estoppel be prevented from exercising statutory powers. As to the argument that the judge ought to have disregarded the encroachment of the gate as de minimis, Brooke LJ said: "The flaw in this argument is that as a matter of law members of the public are entitled to utilise the full width of any footpath over which they have rights of way, subject to a very narrow de minimis exception: see Hertfordshire CC v Bolden (The Times, 9th December 1986) and Wolverton UDC v Willis [1962] 1 All ER 243. The Gillinghams' argument takes no account of the width of the enclosures mentioned in the Definitive Map. They do not appear to understand that the public is entitled to enjoy the full width of the land between the enclosures (as the judge correctly held)."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Crisa and Woodstock Engineering Ltd v Highways Agency [2000] EWLands ACQ_132_1998
6 Apr 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]

 
 Attwood and Another v Bovis Homes Ltd; ChD 18-Apr-2000 - Times, 18 April 2000; Gazette, 18 May 2000; [2001] Ch 371
 
Wells v Bournemouth Borough Council [2000] EWLands LCA_171_1997
19 Apr 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Secured Residential Funding plc v Douglas Goldberg Hendeles and Co (a Firm) Times, 26 April 2000; Gazette, 25 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 144
19 Apr 2000
CA

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

 
 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Tudor Properties Ltd and Others; CA 19-Apr-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 136; (2000) RVR 292
 
Cottingham and Another v Attey Bower and Jones (A Firm) Times, 19 April 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000; [2000] EGCS 48; [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 591
19 Apr 2000
ChD
Rimmer J
Land, Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
A solicitor acted on a purchase in 1993. He asked for but did not receive copies of building regulations consents from 1985. He went ahead anyway. Held: He had been negligent. He had been under a duty to continue the investigation, and to advise his clients that the replies relating to these consents appeared to be misleading. Some consents had been refused, and there remained a small risk of proceedings by the local authority for an injunction under section 36 (6) of the Building Act 1984, even though time limits had expired for other enforcement purposes. A solicitor is generally under a duty to provide specific information or advice, and not to advise on the wisdom of transactions in general. The fact that the claimant would not have purchased the property but for his negligence did not mean that the defendant was liable for every consequences which would not have happened but for the negligence. The loss for which he is responsible will normally be limited to the consequences of the specific information being inaccurate. Damages were awarded on the basis of the cost of rectifying the defect.
Building Act 1984 36(1) 36(2)

 
Mortgage Corporation v Lambert and Co (A Firm) and Another Times, 24 April 2000; [2000] PNLR 820
24 Apr 2000
CA

Land, Limitation, Professional Negligence
If it was alleged that a lender could should have been aware of an overvaluation of a property so as to start the limitation clock, the owner must satisfy the court that it was reasonable at the time alleged for the lender have become obliged to obtain a retrospective valuation. That burden was not carried in this case.
Limitation Act 1980 14A(10)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Mobil Oil Co Ltd v Birmingham City Council Gazette, 05 May 2000
5 May 2000
ChD

Land
An area of land was to be used as a petrol filling station. Part was later to become part of a widened roadway, and that part was let and the remainder sold as freehold. The freehold land had no access to the highway save over the leasehold land. The land sale included an agreement later to grant necessary rights on development. The development was abandoned. On a renewal of the lease, the tenant claimed that the value was affected by the easement. It was held that no sufficient certainty existed to create an easement.

 
Caradon District Council v Paton; Same v Bussell Times, 17 May 2000; Gazette, 31 May 2000; [2000] 3 EGLR 57
10 May 2000
CA
Latham LJ, Clarke LJ
Land
The council had applied for an injunction to restrain the defendants from letting their properties on short term lets for holidaymakers. The houses had been sold by the council under the right to buy schemes, and they remained subject to covenants restraining the use of the property other than as a private dwelling house and not for business use. It now appealed against the refusal of such injunctions. Held: The appeal succeeded. The use for lettings of one or two weeks at a time were not lettings as a private dwelling house, since they lacked the necessary permanence. The tenants could not be said to be using the properties as a home even for the short period, and the lettings were in breach. The use as a private dwellinghouse required some occupation as a home. That element implied a permanence and intention to reside in the property which was missing from such lets. Lord Justice Latham emphasised that covenants must be construed in their context. The context here was the desire to preserve the availability of housing stock built with public funds. Given this finding it was unnecessary to decide whether the use was in breach of the covenant against use for business
Housing Act 1980

 
Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions v Baylis (Gloucester) Ltd; Bennett Construction (UK) Ltd v Baylis (Gloucester) Ltd Times, 16 May 2000; Gazette, 31 May 2000
16 May 2000
ChD

Land, Registered Land
Land once conveyed for the purposes of becoming a highway, became dedicated for that purpose even though no steps were ever taken for its use for that purpose. The registration of a company as proprietor by the Land Registry did not displace the dedication since the interest was an over-riding one under the Act.
Land Registration Act 1925 - Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
1 Citers



 
 Enterprise Inns Plc v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions; QBD 18-May-2000 - Gazette, 18 May 2000
 
Pierce and Another v Coal Authority [2000] EWLands LCA_2_1998
22 May 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Telegraph Service Stations Ltd v Trafford Borough Council and Another [2000] EWLands ACQ_163_1996
24 May 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Burton Group Plc v Rapps (Valuation Officer) [2000] EWLands RA_273_1996
24 May 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Telegraph Service Stations Ltd v Trafford Borough Council and Another [2000] EWLands ACQ_162_1996
24 May 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Burton Group Plc v Rapps (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_272_1996
24 May 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]

 
 Collins, Etridge; Gonzalez v Union Bank of Switzerland Barclays Bank Plc Richard Caplan and Co (a Firm) St Georges Street Trustees Limited St James's Trustees Limited; CA 25-May-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 176
 
Batchelor v Marlow and Another Times, 07 June 2000; Gazette, 25 May 2000; Gazette, 08 June 2000; (2001) 82 P & CR 36
25 May 2000
ChD

Land, Road Traffic, Limitation
The applicant claimed parking rights as an easement. If an easement was capable of arising by virtue of a deed of grant, it could also be acquired by prescription. This was such an easement. Use in the absence of planning permission did not vitiate the acquisition by prescription, since the use did not become unlawful until a planning enforcement notice had been served.
1 Citers


 
City Developments v Registrar General of the Northern Territory (2000) 135 NTR 1; (2000) 156 FLR 1; [2000] NTSC 33
2 Jun 2000

Thomas J
Land
Supreme Court of the Northern Territory - Australia - Hearing of preliminary point - whether purported grant of an easement an easement - easement has four essential criteria - easement does accommodate dominant tenement - the grant possessed all four characteristics - definition of easement - definition of recreation - no reason in law why easement cannot be granted for recreational purposes - intention of grantor to create large recreational area - encumbrance subject and conditional to registered easements - affects each section of land which receive benefit of the easement - test for an easement - recreational purpose is to be construed sensibly and reasonably in context of rural lakeside recreation - right conferred in respect of the grants of easements are in law easements
There was no reason in law why an easement could not be granted for recreational purposes.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Racheter v Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_138_1999
7 Jun 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Allied Irish Bank Group (Uk) Plc v Henelly Properties Ltd and Others Times, 07 June 2000
7 Jun 2000
ChD

Land, Financial Services
The fact that a mortgage advance was to be paid by stages as a building progressed, did not mean that the mortgage securing the advance was delivered in escrow until the building work was complete. If the mortgagee defaulted in his payments the lender was entitled to seek possession of the land at that time.

 
Regina v Planning Inspectorate Cardiff ex parte Elwyn Ivor Howell [2000] EWHC Admin 355
15 Jun 2000
Admn

Land

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Old England Properties Ltd v Telford and Wrekin Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_111_1999
15 Jun 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Selby District Council v Samuel Smith Old Brewery Ltd Gazette, 15 June 2000; (2000) 80 P & CR 466; [2000] EWCA Civ 182
15 Jun 2000
CA

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

[ Bailii ]
 
Peacock, Re [2000] EWLands LP_37_99
16 Jun 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Moase and Lomas v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and South West Water Limited [2000] EWCA Civ 193
16 Jun 2000
CA

Land, Utilities
Objection to compulsory purchase order.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Hillingdon v ARC Limited (No 2) [2000] 3 EGLR 97; [2000] EWCA Civ 191
16 Jun 2000
CA
Arden, Waller, Swinton Thomas
Land, Limitation, Estoppel
The council entered upon land belonging to the company in accordance with the compulsory purchase procedures in 1982, but the company did not bring its claim for compensation until 1992. The council said the were out of time. Held: Section 9 applies to claims for compensation for compulsory purchase. The mere fact that a party has continued to negotiate with the other party about the claim after the limitation period had expired, without anything being agreed about what happens if the negotiations break down, cannot give rise to a waiver or estoppel.
Limitation Act 1980 9 - Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 11
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wildtree Hotels Ltd and others v Harrow London Borough Council Times, 27 June 2000; Gazette, 13 July 2000; [2000] UKHL 70; [2000] 3 All ER 289; [2000] EG 80; [2000] NPC 71; [2000] 2 EGLR 5; [2000] BLGR 547; (2001) 81 P & CR 9; [2001] 2 AC 1; [2000] 3 WLR 165; [2000] RVR 235
22 Jun 2000
HL
Lord Steyn Browne-Wilkinson Lord Nolan Lord Hoffmann Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Land, Damages
The compensation which was payable for disturbance, when works were carried out on land acquired compulsorily, did not extend to the damage caused by noise dust and vibration arising from the works. Where however damage could be brought within the section, it did not cease to be recoverable because the interruption was only temporary. Lord Hoffmann said: "the term 'injuriously affected', connotes 'injuria' that is to say, damage which would have been wrongful but for the protection afforded by statutory powers … In practice this means that a claimant has to show that but for the statute he would have had an action for damages for public or private nuisance." Lord Hoffmann summarised the claim for the effects of obstruction of access due to closing of local roads: "The owners of the hotel ('the claimants') say that during the period of the works they were subjected to various forms of interference with their use and enjoyment of the hotel. Hoardings were erected which obscured the hotel or prevented or restricted access by themselves and their customers. For long periods the roads and pavements leading to the hotel were totally or partially obstructed or closed. The works caused considerable noise, dust and vibration. All this was very detrimental to business."
Lord Hoffmann: "Section 68 gave compensation for injurious affection caused by the "execution" of the works. In Hammersmith and City Railway Co v Brand LR 4 HL 171 the House of Lords (with Lord Cairns dissenting) decided that this meant that there could be compensation only for the effects of the construction of the railway and not for its operation. If an embankment unreasonably obstructed the claimant's light or access, he could claim compensation. But he could not claim for what would otherwise have been a nuisance caused by the noise, vibrations or smell of passing trains."
Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 10
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Whitbread plc v UCB Corporate Services Ltd Times, 22 June 2000; Gazette, 29 June 2000
22 Jun 2000
CA

Land, Financial Services
A deed altering the priorities of two mortgages limited the amount of the prior loan to a capital sum together with interest. The party with priority claimed to be entitled to compound interest, and the second resisted it. The court said that the word 'interest' must refer to that payable under the loan agreement secured by the deeds, and not to interest generally, and therefore the compounded interest was given priority.


 
 Morrells of Oxford Ltd v Oxford United Football Club and Others; ChD 22-Jun-2000 - Gazette, 22 June 2000
 
Carl and Another v Grosvenor Estate Belgravia [2000] EWLands LRA_33_1999
22 Jun 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Prosser and Another v Inland Revenue [2000] EWLands DET_1_2000
26 Jun 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Godfrey v Simm (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_15_1999
27 Jun 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Bowers v Kennedy Times, 27 July 2000; [2000] ScotCS 178; [2000] ScotCS 179
28 Jun 2000
IHCS

Land, Limitation, Scotland
A landowner who had no alternative means of access to his land could not lose a right of way to it by a failure to use it. It was not a right of servitude, but rather an incident of the rights inherent as owner. The inapplicability of periods and rules of limitation in such cases was well established.
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions, Ex Parte Wheeler Gazette, 29 June 2000; Gazette, 20 July 2000; Times, 04 August 2000
29 Jun 2000
QBD

Land, Administrative
The minister decided that upon land which had been compulsorily purchased, but which was no longer needed being sold, it should not first be offered back to the original owners. The owner complained that the decision was in breach of the rules, which required such an offer unless it was a very exceptional case with strong and urgent reasons of public interest. They argued that this required a risk to life or limb. This was too close a definition. For such a decision to be intrinsically perverse, it had to defy comprehension. In this case, the secretary had asked himself the right questions, and the challenge failed.
Crichel Down Rules 1992

 
AIB Group (Uk) Ltd (Formerly Allied Irish Banks Plc and AIB Finance Ltd) v Martin and Another Gazette, 13 July 2000; Gazette, 27 July 2000
13 Jul 2000
CA

Land
Partners borrowed substantial sums from the claimant bank. A charge on the property made each jointly and severally liable for the debts. After default, the bank sought repayment from one partner of sums lent outside the partnership to the other. The appellant asserted that this made him guarantor of the partner, and that any ambiguity should be construed in the surety's favour. The court held that the words were clear and imported the necessary meaning throughout the charge, and the meaning was not outside the parties intentions.

 
Regina v Secretary of State for Defence, Ex Parte Wilkins Gazette, 13 July 2000
13 Jul 2000
QBD

Land
Land had been acquired compulsorily, but was now no longer required. The Minister asserted that the character of the land had changed and that there was no need first to re-offer it to the previous owner. The secretary contended that all the parcels of land should be considered together, and the former owners sought consideration of each parcel separately. The court said that the question related to the plot of land now to be sold, rather than the separate plots which had been purchased.
Crichel Down Rules 1992

 
Blackwell v Evans (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_11_2000
14 Jul 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Pendle Borough Council, Re [2000] EWLands ACQ_27_1999
20 Jul 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Hyde Housing Association Ltd v Williams [2000] EWLands LRX_53_1999
20 Jul 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]

 
 Morrells of Oxford Ltd v Oxford United Football Club Ltd and Others; CA 21-Jul-2000 - Times, 15 August 2000; Gazette, 31 August 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 226; [2001] Ch 459
 
Diggens and Others, Re (No 2) [2000] EWLands LP_27_1999; [2001] EGLR 1
21 Jul 2000
LT
Mr Clarke FRICS
Land
There was a proposal to erect five houses in the gardens of houses subject to restrictive covenants. Held: The existing restrictions did secure practical benefits. The Tribunal referred to a number of factors, one of which was "the prevention of nuisance and annoyance during building works"
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
B and Q Plc v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Ltd Times, 06 September 2000; Gazette, 12 October 2000; [2001] 1 EGLR 93; (2001) 81 P & CR 20; [2000] EG 10
26 Jul 2000
ChD
Mr Justice Blackburne (Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster)
Land
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: Whether an easement was being subjected to an actionable interference, was answered by asking whether insistence upon the use of the entire easement contracted for was reasonable. The grantee should not be deprived of the full extent of what might appear to be an ample right only because he reasonably might require a lesser extent of right.
Blackburne J concluded that there are three propositions which can be deduced from the authorities: (1) the test of an "actionable interference" is not whether what the grantee is left with is reasonable, but whether his insistence on being able to continue the use of the whole of what is contracted for is reasonable; (2) it is not open to the grantor to deprive the grantee of his preferred modus operandi and then argue that someone else would prefer to do things differently, unless the grantee's preference is unreasonable or perverse; (3) if the grantee has contracted for the "relative luxury" of an ample right, he is not to be deprived of that right in the absence of an explicit reservation merely because it is a relative luxury and the reduced, non-ample right would be all that was reasonably required. He summarised the third proposition as follows: "In short, the test . . is one of convenience and not necessity or reasonable necessity. Provided that what the grantee is insisting on is not unreasonable, the question is: can the right of way be substantially and practically exercised as conveniently as before?".
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Marlene Peggy Masters v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions Times, 12 September 2000; Gazette, 14 September 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 249; [2000] 4 PLR 134
31 Jul 2000
CA
Roch LJ
Land
Where a public byway was defined as such under the Act, it was intended that the highway should be shown as such on the definitive map. The fact, if it was such, that a byway had fallen into disuse was not an indication that it should be omitted from the map. The purpose of the Act was precisely to protect little used byways, by recording them, and not by deleting them. Roch LJ: "[The] provisions [of Paragraph 10] were not re-enacted in the 1981 Act because, as Mr Laurence conceded, it was thought by Parliament that those provisions conflicted with the common law rule that, once the public have a right of way of a certain type over land, then in order to extinguish or even vary such a right, intervention by statute, either directly or indirectly, should be necessary."
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1961 66(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Lands Tribunal, Ex Parte Jafton Properties Ltd; COL 31-Jul-2000 - Gazette, 31 August 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 384
 
Llanelec Precision Engineering Co Ltd v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_81_2000
3 Aug 2000
LT

Land, Damages

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
D'Abo v Paget and Others Times, 10 August 2000
10 Aug 2000
ChD

Land
Where a clause in a conveyance was not one found in precedent books of the period, it was not useful to refer to precedents from the time to show the then conveyancing practice. Nor in this case was any support to be obtained from cases involving strict settlements using different wording.

 
Standard Commercial Property Securities Limited for Judicial Review of A Decision Dated 26 August 1999 of Glasgow City Council [2000] ScotCS 228
15 Aug 2000
OHCS
Lord Nimmo Smith
Scotland, Planning, Land

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 191
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Manchester and District Housing Association v Fearnley Construction Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) and Another Gazette, 17 August 2000
17 Aug 2000
ChD

Construction, Land
The defendant builder contracted to build on and then convey the land and building to the claimant. The builder charged the land, but failed to complete the building, and went into liquidation. The claimant sought specific performance with a reduction of the purchase price reflecting the breach. The builder asserted that the obligation to sell only arose on the completion of the building. It was held that the claimant was entitled to the land, since the builder could not rely upon his own fault. Any conditionality was gone once the building work began.

 
Michael James Meston Reid, Permanent Trustee Upon the Sequestrated Estates of Carlene Rose Burnett v Harvey Leighton Grainger and Moira Elizabeth Grainger [2000] ScotSC 23
28 Aug 2000
ScSf
Sheriff Principal D.J. Risk, Q.C.
Scotland, Land

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Citypark Properties Ltd v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_76_2000
6 Sep 2000
LT

Land
LT COMPENSATION - preliminary issue - Highways Act 1980 s 73 - claim for compensation for injurious affection as result of improvement line - whether entitlement to compensation - held no improvement line prescribed by compensating authority - no entitlement to compensation
Highways Act 1980 73
[ Bailii ]

 
 Bath and Wells Diocesan Board of Finance and Another v Jenkinson and Others; ChD 6-Sep-2000 - Times, 06 September 2000; Gazette, 05 October 2000

 
 Lohia and Another v Lohia; ChD 7-Sep-2000 - Gazette, 07 September 2000
 
Lindsay v Highways Agency [2000] EWLands ACQ_110_1998
13 Sep 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Pavilion Court Ltd v Allen and Another [2000] EWLands LRX_42_1999
13 Sep 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
(Un-named) [2000] EWLands ACQ_23_1999
25 Sep 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Howard De Walden Estates Ltd v Dioszeghy [2000] EWLands LRA_9_2000
5 Oct 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Davies and Others, Re [2000] EWLands LP_32_1999
5 Oct 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]

 
 Marriott v Secretary of State for the Environment; Admn 10-Oct-2000 - [2000] EWHC 652 (Admin); [2001] JPL 559
 
Mark Wilkinson Furniture Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board Times, 10 October 2000
10 Oct 2000
QBD

Land, Construction, Employment
The operation of installing kitchens could amount to work altering a building. Accordingly firms carrying out such installations were liable to pay a levy as a contribution to the industry's training scheme. Although in many cases fittings might only be attached to buildings by screws, the fittings were intended to alter the character of a building, and counted as such.
Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1999 159
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Alliance and Leicester Plc v Slayford and Another; CA 12-Oct-2000 - Gazette, 26 October 2000; Times, 19 December 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 257
 
Rahman v Sterling Credit Ltd Times, 17 October 2000; Gazette, 17 August 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 222; [2001] 1 WLR 496
17 Oct 2000
CA
Simon Brown and Mummery LJJ
Land, Limitation, Consumer
A lender sought repossession of a property securing a loan from 1998. The borrower sought to assert that the loan was an extortionate credit bargain under the Act. The lender asserted that that claim was out of time. Held: A claim under a statute was an action upon a specialty, and that accordingly the limitation period applicable was twelve years, and the order was to stand.
Consumer Credit Act 1974 - Limitation Act 1980
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (Structadene Limited) v Hackney London Borough Council; Admn 19-Oct-2000 - Times, 28 November 2000; Gazette, 05 January 2001; [2000] EWHC Admin 405
 
Lepley v Essex County Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_92_2000
24 Oct 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Powell v Cheltenham Borough Council [2000] EWLands LCA_146_2000
25 Oct 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Yambou Development Company Limited v Kauser (as executive of the will of Helen Hadley, deceased) (Appeal No 3 of 1999) [2000] UKPC 40
25 Oct 2000
PC

Land, Contract, Commonwealth
PC (St. Vincent and the Grenadines) specific performance of a contract for the sale of land
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
J A Pye (Oxford) Limited v South Gloucestershire District Council [2000] EWCA Civ 268
26 Oct 2000
CA
Otton, Ward LJJ, Evans-Lombe J
Land, Damages
The company appealed an award by way of valuation for land which was to valued as if purchased compulsorily. It was argued that they were raising points which should have been litigated before the Lands Tribunal. Held: The appeal to the court was only on a point of law, and the company should have brought the full elements of its its valuation claim at the tribunal. The tribunal had not erred in law, and the appeal failed.
Land Consolidation Act 1961
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack plc Gazette, 07 September 2000; Times, 12 October 2000; Gazette, 02 November 2000
2 Nov 2000
QBD

Nuisance, Land, Environment
The defendant owned a bridge which attracted large numbers of feral pigeons. Although the owner was not at fault, they were held liable to contribute to the local authority's costs of steps taken, by surfacing the bridge to deal with the nuisance. The number of pigeons were enough to constitute a public nuisance, and the defendants became liable where they had not remedied the nuisance after a reasonable time. The fact that the pigeons were wild, and that the nuisance was one of inconvenience rather than the causing of actual damage were not relevant. The local authority's request was reasonable.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Ghulam v Bristol City Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_91_2000
3 Nov 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Waters and others v Welsh Development Agency [2000] EWLands ACQ_93_1999; [2001] EWLands RA_16_1999
3 Nov 2000
LT

Land, Damages
LT COMPENSATION - Compulsory purchase of land for purpose of nature reserve to compensate for loss of SSSI caused by Cardiff Bay Barrage – preliminary issues - Land Compensation Act 1961 s 5 rule (3) - Pointe Gourde rule - held land had no special suitability or adaptability for purpose - rule (3) did not apply - public purpose of acquisition must be left out of account - scheme underlying acquisition was Cardiff Bay Barrage.
Land Compensation Act 1961 5(3)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Markfield Investments Ltd v Evans [2000] EWCA Civ 281; [2001] 1 WLR 1321
9 Nov 2000
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Latham
Land, Limitation
The claimants were paper owners of land occupied by the defendant. The claimant said the acquiescence had been interrupted by an abortive court action by the claimant's predecessor in title. Held: With regard to any particular action the relevant time, and the only relevant time, for consideration of adverse possession is that which has expired before such action is brought. A letter and separate action could not found a claim. Appeal dismissed.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v City of Sunderland, ex parte Beresford; Admn 14-Nov-2000 - Times, 16 January 2001; [2000] EWHC Admin 418; [2001] 1 WLR 1327
 
Peacock and Another v Custins and Another Gazette, 15 December 2000; Times, 15 December 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 1958; [2001] 2 All ER 827; [2002] 1 WLR 1815
14 Nov 2000
CA
Schiemann, Mance LJJ, Smith J
Land, Limitation
The conveyance of a field constituting the dominant land to the claimants was expressed to be subject to the benefit of a right of way over land owned by the defendants, enabling the claimants to reach the dominant land "at all times and for all purposes in connection with the use and enjoyment of the property hereby conveyed". The purchaser came to farm the purchased field as one unit with another field, and sought a declaration that the right of way was for the benefit of both fields. Held: In construing such a grant the court was concerned with the identity of the land, and purpose of the grant, not with the extent of its use. Nevertheless, the declaration sought to identify different land and must not be granted.
Schiemann LJ said: "where a court is being asked to declare whether the right to use a way comprises a right to use it to facilitate the cultivation of land other than the dominant tenement, the court is not concerned with any comparison between the amount of use made or to be made of the servient tenement and the amount of use made or that might lawfully be made within the scope of the grant. It is concerned with declaring the scope of the grant, having regard to its purposes and the identity of the dominant tenement. The authorities indicate that the burden on the owner of the servient tenement is not to be increased without his consent. But burden in this context does not refer to the number of journeys or the weight of the vehicles. Any use of the way is, in contemplation of law, a burden and one must ask whether the grantor agreed to the grantee making use of the way for that purpose all three judges (in Harris) were addressing not the question of additional user, but the different question: whether the white land was being used for purposes which were not merely adjuncts to the honest use of the pink land (the dominant tenement); or, rephrasing the same question, whether the way was being used for the purposes of the white land as well as the dominant tenement.
It is in our judgment clear that the grantor did not authorise the use of the way for the purpose of cultivating the blue land. This can not sensibly be described as ancillary to the cultivation of [Whiteacre]."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re St Gregory, Offchurch: Coventry; ConC 16-Nov-2000 - Times, 08 November 2000; Gazette, 16 November 2000

 
 Hale v Norfolk County Council; CA 17-Nov-2000 - Times, 19 December 2000; Gazette, 11 January 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 290; [2001] Ch 717
 
Diggens and Others, Re [2000] EWLands LP_25_2000
20 Nov 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]

 
 Pollard and Another v Ashurst; CA 21-Nov-2000 - Gazette, 18 January 2001; Times, 29 November 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 291
 
Margaret Ribee v Michael Norrie Times, 22 November 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 275; [2001] L & TR 23
22 Nov 2000
CA

Torts - Other, Land, Personal Injury
An owner of a property let to tenants was liable to a neighbour injured after a fire in the property, where the fire arose in circumstances which the owner had power, through the making of rules to prevent. The damage arose from a tenant smoking in a communal area. The test was whether the owner had the right to debar such behaviour. Since he did, he must be treated as the occupier of the land for this purpose and was therefore liable to the neighbour.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Habermann v Koehler and Another (No 2) Times, 22 November 2000
22 Nov 2000
CA

Land, Registered Land
A house owner allowed occupiers in and gave a informal option for them to buy it. He later charged it and sold the property to the chargee in satisfaction of the debt. Before buying it the mortgagee enquired of the occupiers as to whether they intended to purchase the property, and their reply did not mention the option. The court held that the enquiry was sufficient enquiry and that though the option was capable of being an overriding interest, the reply was in terms which did not protect that option. The land was taken not subject to the option. The relevant time was on the purchase, not the taking of the mortgage.
Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g)


 
 First National Bank Plc v Walker and Another; CA 23-Nov-2000 - Times, 13 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 3015; [2001] 1 FCR 21; [2001] 1 FLR 505; [2001] Fam Law 182
 
Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board Of Finance (No 1) Times, 09 January 2001; Gazette, 25 January 2001; [2001] Ch 669; [2000] EWCA Civ 460
24 Nov 2000
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Latham
Education, Land, Limitation, Land
A grant of land was made under the 1841 Act in 1872 (after the 1870 Act) and the school had in 1874 been transferred to a school board under section 23 of the 1870 Act. The school closed permanently in 1992. The issue was whether reverter had occurred in 1874, with the result that the claim of those interested under the reverter had long since become statute barred. The original grant under the 1841 Act followed the National Society standard form.
School Sites Act 1841
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board Of Finance (No 1) Times, 09 January 2001; Gazette, 25 January 2001; [2001] Ch 669; [2000] EWCA Civ 460
24 Nov 2000
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Latham
Education, Land, Limitation, Land
A grant of land was made under the 1841 Act in 1872 (after the 1870 Act) and the school had in 1874 been transferred to a school board under section 23 of the 1870 Act. The school closed permanently in 1992. The issue was whether reverter had occurred in 1874, with the result that the claim of those interested under the reverter had long since become statute barred. The original grant under the 1841 Act followed the National Society standard form.
School Sites Act 1841
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
St John's Hospital Trustees v Keevil and Another [2000] EWLands CON_145_2000
27 Nov 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Hyde v Mallow Properties Ltd [2000] EWLands LRA_22_2000
29 Nov 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Khan v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_132_2000
30 Nov 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Hanina v Morland Gazette, 07 December 2000
7 Dec 2000
CA

Land, Landlord and Tenant
The respondent was tenant of premises with exclusive access to an area of the roof which had been used by her for leisure purposes. The freeholder objected, and she claimed that the use was in the nature of an easement which had passed to her under the section when she took a transfer of the lease. The right she claimed was an exclusive and unrestricted one. The section could not include such a right in the grant of the lease. However since she had the only access, nominal damages were substituted.
Law of Property Act 1925 62

 
Walker and Partners Ltd v Coal Authority [2000] EWLands LCA_48_1997
12 Dec 2000
LT

Land
LT COAL MINING SUBSIDENCE - commercial and industrial premises - extent of damage - cost of repair- depreciation - Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 s.10 - depreciation £223,000 to be paid with interest from 5 October 199
Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 10
[ Bailii ]
 
Flint v Chick and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 397
12 Dec 2000
CA
Arden LJ
Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Rightgrove Ltd v Sedgefield Borough Council [2000] EWCA Civ 399
12 Dec 2000
CA
Arden LJ
Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Holding and Barnes Plc) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Regina (Premier Leisure UK Limited) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Regina (Alconbury) etc Times, 24 January 2001; [2000] EWHC Admin 432; [2000] EWHC 563 (QB)
13 Dec 2000
Admn
Tuckey LJ, Harrison J
Human Rights, Transport, Land, Planning
The court was asked whether the processes by which the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions (SSETR) makes decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) and orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA), the Highways Act 1980 (HA) and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (ALA) are compatible with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Held: A declaration of incompatibility was granted with regard to the processes by which the Secretary of State made decisions under the Planning Act and orders under the Transport and Works Act, Highways Act and Acquisition of Land Act. They were incompatible with article 6.1 of the Convention on the basis that the processes failed to provide an independent tribunal. In some cases, the decisions being challenged were those in effect of the Secretary, and the decision was made by somebody appointed by the subject to removal by the secretary of state. The restrictions on the scope of the High Court to review the decisions and the freedom of the Secretary of State to make his own decision after a public hearing, meant that applicants were deprived of the an independent tribunal.
Human Rights Act 1998 - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 - Acquisition of Land Act 1981 - European Convention on Human Rights 6(1) - Highways Act 1980 - Transport and Works Act 1992
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Geoffrey Cobham v Joseph Frett Times, 24 January 2001; [2000] UKPC 49; [2001] 1 WLR 1775
18 Dec 2000
PC
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Ivor Richardson The Rt. Hon. Edward Zacca
Commonwealth, Land, Litigation Practice
(British Virgin Islands) Two issues arose. First, what was the consequence of inordinate delay between a judge hearing a case and giving his decision, and secondly, how was the law of adverse possession to be applied in cases of interrupted or intermittent occupation. The parties had had resolved a dispute as to the ownership of land, but the winner moved to England, and the neighbour began acts to retake the land. The action to retake the land was heard, but judgement was not given until over a year after the hearing. Held: There was a suggestion that the judge had misremembered some of the evidence, but his notes were detailed, and there was no evidence that the delay had actually effected the judgement. Such would have to be shown to justify setting aside a judgement on this ground. Similarly the judge's analysis of the law was correct.
"As to demeanour, two things can be said. First, in their Lordships' collective experience, a judge re-reading his notes of evidence after the elapse of a considerable period of time can expect, if the notes are of the requisite quality, his impressions of the witnesses to be revived by the re-reading. Second, every experienced judge, and Georges J was certainly that, is likely to make notes as a trial progresses recording the impressions being made on him by the witnesses. Notes of this character would not, without the judge's permission or special request being made to him, form part of the record on an appeal. They might be couched in language quite unsuitable for public record."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Stayley Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions [2000] EWLands ACQ_144_1998
21 Dec 2000
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Shulem B Association Ltd, Re [2000] EWLands LRA_47_2000; [2001] 1 EGLR 105
21 Dec 2000
LT

Land
Hope value was held to justify an increase in the investment value of the freehold by around 15% of the marriage value on an enfranchisement valuation.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ronald and John Popely and Another v D G Scott (Kent County Council) [2000] EWHC Admin 441
21 Dec 2000
Admn
Lord Justice Rose And The Hon Mrs Justice Rafferty
Magistrates, Consumer, Land
This was an appeal by way of case stated. The appellants were alleged to have offered timeshare contracts without notification of cancellation rights. A director claimed he was unfit to attend, but the trial proceeded in his absence. He had, the day before, attended a conference with counsel. Held: Given the medical evidence before them, the magistrates should undoubtedly have allowed an adjournment. The schemes had been constructed so that the purchaser bought shares in a company rather than simply a timeshare. However the magistrates were correct to conclude that this was a timeshare agreement dressed as a share agreement. The magistrates had not effectively considered the opinions of counsel obtained by the respondent and which were capable of establishing a due diligence defence.
Timeshare Act 1992 - Magistrates Courts Act 1980 8 11
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Mohammed Aslam v South Bedfordshire District Council Times, 18 January 2001; Gazette, 11 January 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 355
21 Dec 2000
CA

Land, Planning
The claimant appealed an award of the Lands Tribunal of compensation for an order discontinuing his use as a slaughterhouse of premises of which he held a long lease. The tribunal had applied a discount for wastage on sheep carcasses of 25%, but had had no evidence to support their conclusion, and the figure proposed had allowed for that factor. A reduced allowance for losses from sale of other parts of sheep could not be supported by the evidence, and was increased, and the tribunal should have awarded interest from the date of the discontinuance order.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 102 - Planning and Compensation Act 1991
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Mills V Allen Ltd v Commission for New Towns (trading as English Partnerships); LT 31-Dec-2000 - LCA/144/2000
 
Evis and Smith v Commission for New Towns ACQ/125-7/2000
31 Dec 2000
LT

Land, Damages, Landlord and Tenant
LT COMPENSATION - preliminary issue - disturbance payment - Land Compensation Act 1973 s 37 - business premises acquired by authority with compulsory purchase powers - land later developed by company with lease from authority - entitlement to compensation under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s 37 - whether such entitlement precludes compensation under 1973 Act s 37(1)(a) - whether fact that development not carried out by authority precludes compensation under s 37(1)(c) - held compensation under s 37(1)(a) not precluded but no entitlement under s 37(1)(c)
Land Compensation Act 1973 37

 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.