A recreational area was claimed to be a common. The council considered that there was evidence, which it accepted, of an implied licence, thus enabling the inference to be drawn that the use by local inhabitants for statutory purposes had not been as of right.
Held: Time could not begin to run in the acquisition of rights of common where the exercise of the rights could have been founded on an implied licence. An implied licence has the same legal effect as an express licence. In the absence of an express permission, the court must ask whether a reasonable person with the knowledge available would have appreciated that the use was with the landowner’s acquiescence. ‘the fact that the land is in public ownership is plainly a relevant matter when one is considering what conclusion a reasonable person would draw from the circumstances of user. It is well known that local authorities do, as part of their normal functions, provide facilities for the use of the public and maintain them also at public expense. It is not part of the normal function of a private landowner to provide facilities for the public on the land. Public ownership of the land is plainly a relevant consideration.’ The claim to register must fail.
Judges:
Janet Smith J
Citations:
Times 16-Jan-2001, [2000] EWHC Admin 418, [2001] 1 WLR 1327
Links:
Statutes:
Commons Registration Act 1965 22
Citing:
Appealed To – Regina (on the application of Beresford) v The City of Sunderland CA 26-Jul-2001
Local inhabitants requested the alteration of the Town and Village Green register to include land over which they claimed use as of right for more than twenty years. The difference between acquiescence, which would allow the claim, and tolerance or . .
Cited by:
Appeal From – Regina (on the application of Beresford) v The City of Sunderland CA 26-Jul-2001
Local inhabitants requested the alteration of the Town and Village Green register to include land over which they claimed use as of right for more than twenty years. The difference between acquiescence, which would allow the claim, and tolerance or . .
At First Instance – 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: . .
Approved – Barkas, Regina (on The Application of ) v North Yorkshire County Council and Another SC 6-Mar-2014
The Court was asked as to the registration of a playing field as a ‘town or village green’. Local residents asserted that their use of the land, having been ‘as of right’ required the registration. They now appealed against rejection of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Limitation
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140234
